Template talk:Infobox German Location

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Template This article has been rated as Template-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Municipality

I tried out this infobox on Angelbachtal. I see a couple minor problems.

  • The town type gets reused in a couple places. For example, I used municipality for Gemeinde. I switched it to lower case, because the info box reuses this word in
    • Address of the municipality administration.
    • And in the regional image title, Location of the municipality Angelbachtal within Rhein-Neckar district.
But because I wrote it lower case the Administration entry, municipality subdivisions is now lowercase, too.
  • The town type also causes problems in that I would prefer to say municipal subdivisions and municipal administration.
  • We should not hyphenate towntype-subdivisions.
  • In the template itself, it often uses to instead of from.imars 13:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
For example: Only when different to the article name —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Imars (talk • contribs) 13:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
Thanks. The application of this template to municipalities is something that I have not given much thought to yet, since the editors of the German version refused to apply their template to Gemeinde entries. I don't see why we should not apply the English one to municipalities, I just haven't gotten around to that yet. Addressing your points:
  • The capitalisation issue should now be fixed. The correct capitalisation should now be used in the right place and so the input should no longer be case sensitive (so you should be able to say "Municipality" or "municipality" without any trouble).
  • The hyphenation has been removed.
  • I don't understand what you mean about municipal subdivisions and municipal administration - could you please tell me more? (sorry, i understand now)
  • I've changed the text to "different from". "Different to" is perfectly acceptable in non-US English, though. - 52 Pickup 13:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Different to is only bad in US English? I never realized that. Learn something new every day. - imars 07:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories: Cities/Towns/Villages in (state)

The German version of this template assigns all articles to "Kategorie: Ort in {Bundesland}", while the English wiki has three different categories to cover this: "Category: Cities/Towns/Villages in (state)" even though there is no clear delination between such locations in Germany. It is reasonably easy to automatically assign entires to these categories, but what should be the rationale for assignment?

Apart from teething problems regarding the new template, this issue is perhaps the most important thing that needs to be addressed before widespread use of this template can commence. - 52 Pickup 13:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to wonder at the category Category: Villages in (State). I searched for this category in Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg, Lower Saxony, and Hessia and found no result. It seems to me that we do not need a village category. What would qualify as a village, anyway?
As I understand the structure of German local governments, you either have a Gemeinde or a Stadt. See here, from DE Wikipedia Gemeindearten in Deutschland. The categories as they exist place an arbitrary population limit of 100,000 persons. What we should use is the whatever the German criteria is for the distinction between Stadt and Gemeinde. So towns would be everything that is amtsfreie and amtsangehörigen Gemeinden, while cities would be Kreisfreie Städte and Stadtstaaten.
This then begs the question, if we use the term municipality for Gemeinde as defined in Wikipedia:German-English translation requests/Translation guide, then perhaps the categories should be cities and municipalities. Whew! Why do I feel that I have opened a can of worms.imars 08:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It's definitely a tricky matter. But if we take care of it now, we can implement everything within the infobox. I believe that the whole categorisation that is currently in place should be scrapped, then re-established from here. For example Wiesbaden-Biebrich is classified as a town, when it is a suburb of Wiesbaden.
The intro text for Category:Cities in Germany says

"There is no legal distinction between towns and cities in Germany. This category contains articles about settlements with more than 100,000 inhabitants. Smaller German settlements are in the Towns in Germany category."

This, according to the German wiki, qualifies a town to be known as a de:Großstadt, which is considered to be the closest German word that describes "city" in English (in terms of differentiating it from a town). Meanwhile, List of cities in Germany follows its German equivalent (de:Liste der Städte in Deutschland) and has a different list (separate to those categorised) and says:

EN:"Only municipalities with independent administration and that have the Stadtrecht (city rights) are included."
DE:"Die Liste der Städte in Deutschland enthält eine vollständige Auflistung aller 2075 Städte in Deutschland in alphabetischer Reihenfolge (Stand: 27. November 2006). Es sind nur die (verwaltungsrechtlich selbständigen) Gemeinden aufgeführt, die das Stadtrecht besitzen. Auf die einzelnen Bundesländer entfallen folgende Anzahlen:"

This, I imagine, includes all locations with more than 100,000 inhabitants plus many others (see also Town#Germany).
Given this, perhaps we could say:
  • City: more than 100,000 people
  • Town: anything listed in List of cities in Germany with less than 100,000 people
  • Municipality (Gemeinde): anything else (excepting villages, suburbs, etc)
The criteria given under de:Großstadt stems from the first conference of the International Statistical Institue back in 1887. I know the Germans are crazy for standards, but do you see anywhere else where this standard of 100,000 people is applied? It seems very arbitrary to me. To me, anything that is a Stadt should be a city. Then we use either a new category: municipalities for all Gemeinde. This will nicely reflect the distinction between Gemeinde and Stadtrecht. Or we can subvert the category town. In this case there will be some towns with larger population than some cities, but I could live with that.imars 08:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "what is a village?", I think that a village may be defined as a subdivision of a town or municipality, while a suburb/ward/borough is a subdivision of a city (eg. WI-Biebrich above). For example, Steinheim, Westphalia features on the List of cities in Germany, but has a population way below 100,000 - so we might define this as a town. It consists of the main town of Steinheim plus 8 outlying villages. If you were to enter Bergheim, the road sign would say "Bergheim, Stadt Steinheim, Kreis Höxter". Maybe this doesn't hold up for all cases (following the many different types listed at de:Gemeindearten in Deutschland), but it's a start. All of this requires wider discussion, but I think we can come to a reasonable solution that can be easily put in place via this infobox.
Village as a subdivision of a municipality sounds OK. Woud a criteria of being non-contiguous make sense?imars 08:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
On the subject of further subidivisions, the editors of de:Vorlage:Infobox Ort in Deutschland have strictly said that their infobox is not to be used for Ortsteile (villages, suburbs, wards, borroughs, etc.) but I don't see why we shouldn't do it here. I have been testing with including these locations (see my test infobox for WI-Biebrich here) - this uses my test version of the infobox, not this one. - 52 Pickup 11:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not think this will come up very often. Most articles will not include enough information to create separate entries with info boxes. But I see no real harm in it. The only potential harm I see would be us ending up with an info box for everything. Does every article warrant an info box? But we can leave that discussion to others.imars 08:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess the categories are not perfect. See for instance Category:Cities by country, Category:Towns by country, Category:Municipalities by country, and the not so densely populated Category:Villages in Germany. I think it's better to disable automatic categorisation for now. Technically, if we use "town" as translation for "Stadt", and "city" for "Großstadt", the List of cities in Germany should be renamed List of towns in Germany. And is there a good translation for "Ortsteil" and "Stadtteil"? I see all kinds of translations, including the wonderful "city-part". Markussep 09:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

From speaking with some German native-speakers, it seems the norm to translate "Großstadt" to "city" and "Stadt" to "town", so I think it is valid for us to still use Cities and Towns categories, and List of cities in Germany should probably be renamed. For "Ortsteil" and "Stadtteil" there appears to be no clear translation (dict.leo.org says "district" for both). To make some sort of standard for all of these names will need some widespread consensus. But if the Ortsteile are not contiguous, then that would be a good criteria for calling it a "village". Once the naming has been settled, then the auto-categorisation can go ahead.
The municipalities category should definitely be better used. The villages category is so empty because not many villages have pages of their own yet, similar to the lack of pages for suburbs. Whether or not each one should have a page is not a question that we can answer here, but we should make it possible for people to use this infobox for such pages if they decide to create them (i have modified my test template to place "City" and "Town" fields under "Amt", "Samtgemeinde", etc. - what do you think?) - 52 Pickup 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with "district" is that it's used for Kreise. Maybe "borough" is better. Or "village", if it's a separate, rural settlement. I wouldn't call Rheydt a village. So we get the following system then:

  • city, if it's bigger than 100,000
  • town, if it's smaller than 100,000, and it has town/city rights
  • municipality, for municipalities that don't have town rights
  • village, for dependent rural settlements
  • borough, for dependent urban settlements

Maybe we should merge some of these categories, but we can discuss that on the project page later. Markussep 10:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

For further confusion see de:Braunschweig-Hondelage. Here it differentiates between "Stadtteil" (which appears here more as "suburb") and "Stadtbezirk" (which matches "burrough"). Rheydt is a tricky case since it was previously a kreisfreie Stadt and comprises 3 of the Stadtbezirke that make up Mönchengladbach (according to the German entry). But since it is part of a city (instead of a town) it should not be called a village.
I have made a first attempt at auto-categorisation. It is not used on the template just yet, but on my test one. It worked so far with the articles currently listed here (no articles use this test version, i only looked at them as an edit-preview). The auto-categorisation only works on articles in the Article space. At the moment it (hopefully) covers all cases, except for subdivisions of cities/towns (so no villages, borroughs or suburbs). Give it a try (in article preview only) and see if there are any other bugs (and i'm sure that they're there) - 52 Pickup 14:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God! Now you know how a German feels when he is trying to understand the britsh system(s) of local government! I will try to explain the German system: There are three "Gebietskörperschaften" (maybe to translate best with: area muncipalities, if that makes any sense to you) plus the EU. So the hierachy is like this:

"1. EU " 2. The Federal Republik of Germany 3.The (16) Federal States (including Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen) 4. municipalities (including all districts, cities (without Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen(without Bremerhaven with is a city of its own in the Federal State Bremen.), towns and municipalities.

In NRW the political subdivisions are: 1. The Federal State (Bundesland) with its elected Parliament and a Primeminister and several Ministers. 2. The Regierungsbezirke (supervising authorities) (no elected council) with a "Regierungspräsident" as its chiefexecutive. Supervising all districts, cities, towns and municipalities in its area. They are named after the town or city in which they are based, like Arnsberg (supervising the eastern Ruhr Area and the Sauerland with Dortmund, Hamm, Hagen, District Unna ...etc.)or Münster. 3.

  • Districts (Kreise) have a District council (Kreistag) with a direct elected "Landrat".

They are formed by several independant towns and/or municipalities.

  • Cities (Großstädte or Kreisfreie Städte or Stadtkreise( in NRW all the same, for this status you need 100.000 inhabitants)). They have elected councils (Räte) with a direct elected first mayor "the Oberbürgermeister" (often translated as Lord Mayor, he is not only a representive, he is also the chiefexecutive of the Citygovernment) and several other mayors elected by the councils (in case of Hamm a second mayor, a third mayor and a fourth mayor). Cities are seldom part of districts, Göttingen (Lower saxony) for example is.

Both cities and districts have their own registration plates. Ex.: HAM for Hamm (HAM-M 333) and UN for Unna (UN-X 111)towns and municipalities in the district Unna are using the UN opn the reg-plates.

4. Towns and municipalities: They have elected councils with a mayor as its head. In NRW and most of the other Federal States they are part of a district like Unna (the district council is based in the town Unna and so the ditrict (Kreis) is named after it.) because the are to small to attend to all their duties alone, like waste management or Schools etc.. 5. The cities and some towns and municipalities have Bezirke with their own elected councils (Bezirksvertretungen).The councils have a Bezirksvorsteher (some kind of nearly a mayor, haven't found a Translation) In case of the city Hamm there are seven of them, Hamm, Bockum-Hövel, Heessen (former towns), Rhynern, Uentrop, Herringen and Pelkum (former municipalities). These smaller local councils are for advising the town- or citycouncils and the Oberbürgermeister.


The townrights (Stadtrechte) means in the old style the right to build citywalls and having their own jugdement and jugdes, sometimes even to mint and so on. In the modern political system of Germany, they lost their function. This means you can get the title by asking for it, in case your municipality has a bit of an urban charakter. With the title town (Stadt) comes nothing it is just the title.

The status "Großstadt" City is changing the duties of the former town. A city has to attend to all duties of a district by itself.


"Ortsteil/Stadtteil" both are not political subdivisions they're only parts of a town or city (Stadtteil) or a municipality. Like Hövel a part of the Bezirk (maybe quarter?)Bockum-Hövel in the city Hamm.

"Ort" means place or site or town or village, even city etc. The german category (Ort in Bundesland) just gives a hint in which Federal State the town or what ever is located it doesn't categorize the political sub division!

Village means 10 or more houses (Bavarian Law). Kleinstadt ("small sized" town) means more than 5000 and less than 20.000 inhabitants. Mittelstadt ("medium sized" town) means more than 20.000 and less than 100.000 inhabitants. Großstadt ("City") more than 100.000 inhabitants. (81 in Germany by 2005) Millionenstadt ("City") with more than 1.000.000 inhabitants. (Berlin, Hamburg, München, sometimes Köln)sometimes also called Metropole.

amtsfreie Gemeinden = kreisfreise Städte (word by word: district free towns) and in some states even smaller towns are free of beeing part of a district.

amtsangehörige Gemeinden/Städte = municipalities or towns which are part of a district.

I hope that will help you, with this problem so far. You can find me here--Gabriel-Royce 21:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC) German native!

Thank you for this incredibly detailed explanation of a very complicated matter! So do you think that we should try to auto-categorise localities a bit better than just "Ort in Bundesland" (using some of the (sub)categories shown within Category:Municipalities of Germany), or do you think that this is not a good idea?
A new thing: I just noticed on entries for Polish cities that they have a field for stating when that town received Stadtrechte - would it make sense to include it here? With that field, it would make it automatically clear which entries are municipalities/samtgemeinde/etc. and which are towns/cities - the population limit of 100,000 would then separate the cities from the towns.
The more I look at this, the more it seems that a separate infobox design may be necessary for municipality/town/city subdivisions (eg. {{Infobox Frankfurt Stadtteil}}) - 52 Pickup 17:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget the field Art. The infobox still knows if the article is a Samtgemeinde, Stadt or Gemeinde. -- Netnet @ 17:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
That is true, but sometimes this field is not filled in. Perhaps a warning should be displayed it if is forgotten. - 52 Pickup 17:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I've just seen it. Which categories do we need here? I think it would be okay just to use the following system:

Orte (maybe Settlement or Places as translation? Any other ideas?) in Germany

Subs: Orte in NRW and so on. => Sub:Orte in NRW

SubSubs: Cities in NRW, Towns in NRW, Municipalities in NRW, Ortsteile in NRW

Berlin Hamburg and Bremen should be combined with neighbouring States like Brandenburg and Berlin => Subcat: Orte in Brandenburg and Berlin.

Municipalties could include Sub Sub Subcategories for Amt, Samtgemeiden and so on.

Districts should stay for themselves as Category Districts in Ger. Subs for the Fed. States.

If there are Question, please ask on my talk page, because I'm a bit busy with my Exams in Forestry, and only briefly passing by until 13. February. --Gabriel-Royce 23:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Only a few month late but I need to add that in the above the statement amtsfreie Gemeinden = kreisfreise Städte is incorrect. Amtsfreie Gemeinde is any municipality that is not part of an Amt aka Verbandsgemeinde aka Samtgemeinde ect. Agathoclea —Preceding comment was added at 15:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What information should not be shown?

Template talk:Infobox Town DE#Information deliberately left out of this template shows a list of things that Infobox Town DE does not include, some of these things are currently displayed by this template. Some of these fields are not shown in the German one either, but contain the information as metadata (that is, you can fill in the fields but that data is not displayed). At the moment, all fields are visible because the template is still in its early days, but which ones are not worth displaying here? - 52 Pickup 21:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My "hatelist":
  • local subdivisions ("Ortsteile" and "Stadtteile")
  • the party the mayor belongs to
  • foundation date
  • former postal codes ← now hidden
  • Gemeindeschlüssel ← now hidden
  • NUTS region ← now hidden
  • UN/LOCODE ← now hidden
  • address of the city administration (internet site is enough IMO) ← now hidden
  • time zone, that's CET for the whole of Germany. Markussep 21:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It has become as good as standard to give the mayor's party (eg. Barcelona), just as many infoboxes for higher-level regions to give the political party for premiers, prime ministers or presidents.
  • The foundation date and time zone are standard features of {{Infobox City}} (eg. Brussels), even if the time zone does not vary within the country. But since this is a German-specific infobox, the timezone can probably either go or be differently displayed. If the foundation date is unknown for so many locations (and this appears to be so) then that should probably go.
  • Former postal codes, Address: agreed, they don't really tell anything of use for readers of the English wiki. Since these are features of the German version of this infobox, they will be copied over anyway, but they can be simply hidden.
  • CIN, NUTS, UN/LOCODE: Should be hidden as metadata. The German version hides all of these except CIN
  • Subdivisions: It is not normal for a city infobox to list its subdivisions, but not totally unusual (eg. London). But it is probably something that belongs in the body text. - 52 Pickup 21:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if mayors are supposed to be neutral in Germany. Well, let's show the party, it will fit on the same line probably. Markussep 23:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It usually fits on the one line without any trouble. Many of the above variables will now not be displayed. If directly copied over from the German wiki, the page will still contain this hidden information, which is reasonable enough. - 52 Pickup 10:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is: Bürgermeister oder Oberbürgermeister oder Landrat (male version) or Bürgermeisterin, Oberbürgermeisterin oder Landrätin (female). You can write it in German as : Bürgermeister/in and so on as male and female Version written in one or use the generic masculinum (generisches Maskulinum) with is just the male version of the word. (sometimes considered to be discourteous)--Gabriel-Royce 22:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Were I live we got a few female mayors about (Neyland and Pembroke Dock to my knowledge) and they seem never to refered to as mayoress, so I think we can stick to neutral. Agathoclea 15:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
@Agathoclea Was just the answer to the question above: " I'm not sure if mayors are supposed to be neutral in Germany."! There is no neutral Version of that title in Germany! Okay so far? --Gabriel-Royce 15:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Schaut so aus, als ob wir beide auf dem Schlauch stehen, IMO meinte Markussep die Parteizugehörigkeit. Agathoclea 16:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ups, wie peinlich! Naja, kommt vor!--Gabriel-Royce 16:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the original discussion was about political neutrality, not gender, but it is still a valid issue. In the English language, the word "mayor" is widely considered to be gender-neutral, so "mayoress" is not used - even when discussing those in non-English-speaking countries. - 52 Pickup 17:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dossenheim

I have also tried this info box on Dossenheim, which is nearly complete.imars 07:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good. It's a pity that the location (Lageplan) images are not all yet on the Commons. - 52 Pickup 16:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

The template does not work if you add numbers with the format X,XXX. Why? Bye and good work. --Attilios 13:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

see above problem here. Agathoclea 13:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates

Why aren't the coordinates in the article header any more? It doesn't make sense to include them a second time only to solve that problem. In case you don't see the problem, see this change and the one before and after. --32X 17:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The co-ordinates must be visible within the body of the article - the co-ordinates in the article header are not seen when using certain Wikipedia skins. So if the co-ordinates are in the article header, they still need to be added to the body text to make sure that everyone can see them. With this new infobox, the co-ordinates are only placed in the infobox, but the functionality that is used by co-ordinates in the article header is maintained. - 52 Pickup 18:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edingen-Neckarhausen

Adding template to Edingen-Neckarhausen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Imars (talk • contribs) 12:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Language and other notes

I find it ridiculous that one should work here with all these German words. How users can tackle them? :Others

Missing the population density value
Unable to show population numbers according to the format specified in WP:Style (say, 4,916 is correct, 4916 no).

--Attilios 12:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

23-Sep-2007: (7 months later) Yes, now I have added English aliases for German parameters (as originally intended). The documentation now lists both, showing others that "Kreis" is district or "Höhe" is elevation. The coding was very difficult, hence the delay. See below: English aliases for German parameters. Trying, but can't yet remove the population commas. -Wikid77 18:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Having the German variable names was one of the main reasons for developing this template: to facilitate transfer of towninfo data from the German wiki. The variable names here are identical to the variables used by the template on the German wiki (the variables with English names are extra features not present on the German version). This allows users to simply copy and paste the infobox data from the German wiki (with a few small modifications). Addition of English names to all variables is planned, but I'm too busy to do that right now.
Population density is not missing, it is automatically calculated once area and population are given.
Values for area and population must be entered without any commas or spacing, in order for calculations to work (conversion of area from km² to sq.mi., and calculation of pop.density, both in people per km² and per sq.mi.). Unfortunately, there does not exist at this time (to my knowledge) any function that can remove commas and spacing prior to any calculations, hence the restrictions on data entry. Displaying the numbers in the infobox with commas is caused by the formatnum template. Displaying large numbers like area and population with commas is recommended by WP:Style-Numbers - 52 Pickup 11:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added Eppelheim

I added the template to Eppelheim and Epfenbach. Is it useful for me to announce where I have used this template since it is still under construction?imars 07:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that the template is now more or less complete (just a few tweaks might be needed here and there - and i'm not sure if we should go ahead with auto-categorisation and usage for city subdivisions), so from now on, it might be necessary to announce usage whenever a problem or something unusual comes up. - 52 Pickup 08:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaiberg Wappen Graphic

I am having trouble with the graphic for the Wappen for Gaiberg. It works in the German info box. I can click on the placeholder for the image. But the image will not display. Could this be an error with the infobox? imars 11:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No idea why that happens. I have seen this happen in various places before, but only temporarily. This is very strange. - 52 Pickup 13:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inhabitants

I repeat, we should find a way to show inhabitants (say, more than 1,000) in the correct way specified at WP:Manual of Style. Solution would be to add a new field for density, taking the value from the de.wikipedia. Also, headers shouldn't be in capitals. Bye, and good work. --Attilios 11:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

referred. Agathoclea 11:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is already implemented, but some of the if statements must be wrong. It will work above 10000 though. Agathoclea 11:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
There is no density value in the German version - it is calculated in exactly the same way as it is done here. The difference here is that formatnum is used in this version on top of density (the DE version does not use that here). It is the formatnum function which converts 12345 to 12,345. According to WP:Style-Numbers, large numbers should be separated by commas in this way. The "10000" limit was part of the template function that I have just changed to 1000 to see how it goes - but that should probably be changed back to 10000. - 52 Pickup 13:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I just tested formatnum, and there would be no need to if-clause the value. Numbers of less than 1000 are unaffected. That way the template could be a little leaner. Agathoclea 13:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if the limit is kept at 1000, the if-clause would not be needed. This is something that was taken from the German version of this template. - 52 Pickup 14:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:(district), as first step?

The extensive discussion above on auto-categorising this template doesn't seems to have settled the vexed question of what to do with the "stadt"s, but would there by any objection to having it feed into a single kreis-level category for each such? (We already have some of these, e.g. Cat:Marburg-Biedenkopf. Alai 01:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

An interesting idea, especially considering that the German wiki categorises locations in this way (albeit not automatically). Although, maybe this sort of categorisation should be done via the navbars that most articles have - for example {{Towns and municipalities in the district of Marburg-Biedenkopf}}. Not sure. - 52 Pickup 15:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parameter

It looks like the use of the parameter "Art" is making mediawiki think the template {{Art}} is being transcluded onto articles. [1]. This was noticed doing some image maintenance. I can fix it if you want, but I don't know what parameter people would prefer. :) - cohesion 03:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The template syntax is pretty complicated, so missing something like that is pretty easy. It appears to be fixed now (that Whatlinkshere page will soon clear up if this is the case). It is the complexity of the template that is the main reason why most fields are still in German and I haven't made it bi-lingual yet. Can you imagine how complicated the syntax would look then? - 52 Pickup 08:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and yikes :) - cohesion 12:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pop_source ---> pop_ref

To reduce the amount of external links within articles, the pop_source field is being phased out by pop_ref. While pop_source required just a weblink, pop_ref requires full referencing (including ref tags). For an example, see Cologne. When adding data in this field, it is also necessary to make sure that the page has a references section.

The pop_source variable has now been disabled and any articles still using it have been placed into this category - Category:Germany articles requiring maintenance under section "I". - 52 Pickup 12:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates

I would like to change from using {{coor d}} to using {{coord}}. The latter has a display property, which can be display=inline, display=title or display=inline,title. "inline" would replace the former template literally, but using both values also displays the coordinates in the title bar. Could someone more familiar with the intricacies of this template oblige, please? Andy Mabbett 17:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a try with this edit, but the title co-ordinates do not appear to display correctly. But the coord template is now in place, only that it currently says display=inline so it can easily be changed to display=inline,title when it works properly. - 52 Pickup 20:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. coord is working well elsewhere; I think the problem may be that the "display" setting has to be the last one. Andy Mabbett 21:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible code problem?

I just added the infobox to Marsberg, partially to try it, partially as incentive to do something about the stub, but it's giving me Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "�" in the elevation section, and I can't figure out why. There are no "?"'s, and no unknown sections, so... what's causing it? How do I fix it?

And while I'm at it, can anyone check the two sets of coordinates (one's commented out) in Obermarsberg to see which are more accurate? -Bbik 00:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Marsberg came from the dash used in the elevation field. If a single value is given, the value is also displayed in feet. But if a range is given, the dash separating the two values must be a simple minus sign instead of the sometimes-used longer dash (which looks as good as identical to the minuss sign). When the longer dash is used, the elevation value cannot be comprehended by the code (which is expecting a number or mathematical statement). Regarding Obermarsberg, the two versions are the same but I'd probably go with the DMS version (the one that you did not comment out). - 52 Pickup 12:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Figures it was the one thing I didn't try/notice. Thanks, on both counts. -Bbik 13:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delmenhorst

Please take a look at the page for Delmenhorst. The location map doesn't work properly. --Valentinian T / C 11:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The article used the old infobox not this one. Agathoclea 13:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, but the talk page for the old infobox appeared to be stale, which is why I looked here. Thanks for fixing it. Valentinian T / C 18:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the Infobox

One (more or less unfortunate) thing I observed is, that if one enters "Gemeinde" in the "Infobox German Location" field "Art", then the field label of "Gliederung" is not working correctly any more. See Havixbeck for example. Any suggestions what to do? Extrala 07:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted Gemeinde now, but the problem will be there again in case someone types in the Art:Gemeinde. Is it a general problem or just in that specific article?--Gabriel-Royce 12:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this a problem of the template. Since I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing, I doubt I can fix this. Maybe we should switch this discussion to the Germany Project talk page, and ask the question there. Extrala 22:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This conversation was originaly held on my talk page. The Problem is unsolved. Any ideas?--Gabriel-Royce 08:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the specific Havixbeck problem (there was a stray "=" sign), but may have caused other problems, as I couldn't figure out why there was a blank field at the beginning of the series (which seems calculated to confuse the parser). Feel free to partially-revert if needed.
For future reference, it would help random passersby like me to figure things out if it can be specified exactly how a template or field is "not working properly."  ;-) It's probably obvious to the regulars, but for folks like me such descriptions tend to be a little opaque. -- Visviva 12:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistence.--Gabriel-Royce 14:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geographical co-ordinates

I have just set the geographical co-ordinates to display both within the infobox and on the title bar. This would have been done ages ago, but the coord template was having problems. Only when co-ordinates are in the title bar will they be picked up by other programs such as Google Earth. It doesn't work if the co-ordinates are placed within the article. Not sure how long until the Wikipedia layer on Google Earth refreshes itself, but soon all entries using this infobox will be displayed on Google Earth.

There is one problem. Various articles have manually added a separate co-ordinates template. This causes an ugly overlap at the title bar. So could you please delete these extra templates as you find them. Thanks. - 52 Pickup 18:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The latter sounds like a job for a bot; see WP:BOTREQ - but what do you mean by {{coord}} having had "problems"? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Good idea about the bot, I'll look into it. The problem earlier on was that the co-ords line did not show above or below the title line, but right in the middle of it. No idea why. The main thing is that at least it works now.
By the way, I'd like to remind all regular users of this template to check Category:Germany articles requiring maintenance every now and then. Articles are automatically placed here if certain template criteria are not met. - 52 Pickup 19:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Samtgemeinden etc.

Hi 52 Pickup, I have a request for the infobox. Could you make the infobox link directly to the right Samtgemeinde, Amt, Verbandsgemeinde, Verwaltungsgemeinschaft etc.? The German infobox uses the "bare" Amt etc. name, e.g. |Verwaltungsgemeinschaft = Elbe-Heide, and links to standard article titles like [[Verwaltungsgemeinschaft Elbe-Heide]]. We have a slightly different standard, we use the "bare" name if it's not ambiguous, and titles like Loreley (Verbandsgemeinde) if it's ambiguous. That would save us a lot of editing. Thanks, Markussep Talk 09:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe as a matter of course we could place a redirect from unambiguous name {Verwaltungsgemeinschaft) to solve half the problem. I have done that with some of the districts to bluelink the infobox entries. Agathoclea 09:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
(removed my previous incorrect post) Damn, I thought I had that working properly all this time. Silly me. I'll get onto it. - 52 Pickup 10:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Fixed (i hope!). Until now it worked correctly only for the "Amt" field but not for the others. Given the confusing appearance of the template code, it was easy to overlook this mistake. Sorry about that. Is everything working properly now? - 52 Pickup 10:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It works for Adenau, Oldendorf, Stade, Golßen and Schlepzig, thanks!. I guess it uses X (unit) if that article exists, and if it doesn't, X? Markussep Talk 12:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
That's right. And then if article X doesn't exist it should display just "X" without links. - 52 Pickup 12:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice! Markussep Talk 13:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Germany articles requiring maintenance (I)

Is it intentional, that I have to place a manual ref-tag in pop_ref? Agathoclea 09:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Afraid so. I couldn't set the template to create the ref tags itself, so they must be placed manually in the pop_ref field. - 52 Pickup 09:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguating Urban

Greetings from WikiProject Disambiguation! Currently, [[urban]] is one of the words we are working on. There are a large number of hits for German cities which I want to link to [[urban area]], but I can't trace down exactly where the link occurs. It appears to be in {{Infobox German Location}}, but I can't find exactly where. I made an attempted fix, but the effect was quite counterintuitive. Could sumbuddy help me out here? — Randall Bart (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought this problem had been fixed. These phantom links are caused by a strange feature of the switch or ifexists functions - not sure what. After another attempt, I think I've got it fixed now. If not, please let us know. - 52 Pickup 15:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks okay now. Thanx. — Randall Bart (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant marker

17-September-2007: I am setting the default "mark=" image file for the pointer as the (redundant) copy, Image:Red_pog2.svg (identical to the original pointer), to bypass the ongoing image-cache problems during September 15-17, 2007. Only the original red-dot image (Image:Red_pog.svg) has been disappearing at size 8x8 pixels: the blue dot (Image:Blue_pog.svg) and redundant red-dot "Red_pog2.svg" have been reliable when 8x8 pixels. -Wikid77 11:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English aliases for German parameters

23-Sep-2007: I am working on a new version of Infobox_German_Location which allows English parameter names for the German parameters (such as "district" same as "Kreis" or "mayor" same as "Bürgermeister"). The English names also match those used in Template:Infobox_Town_DE to allow copy-paste of those infobox lines into Infobox_German_Location. The new version is currently being tested before release. -Wikid77 04:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Okay, I installed a tested English-alias revision of Infobox_German_Location at 09:23 UTC on 23-Sep-2007. It is not perfect, lacking several English aliases, but it is a rapid start, after months of people shocked at having to use German parameters (with umlauts). The long-range plan has been, for several months, to allow English-name parameters, but the one-liner template coding has been treacherous when expanding to allow more parameter names. This revision also allows optional "px" sizes, as in "imagesize=250" (or also "250px"). Again, writing the code (in spare time) has been wretched because the MediaWiki language ("{{#if...}}") is in its infancy (as are map-locator templates), with no local template variables possible (as far as I could determine). Also, we can't simply "de-comma" the population when "9,250" so everyone is getting Expression error. -Wikid77 18:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Added alias "plantext" for Lageplanbeschreibung. -Wikid77 14:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One-liner coding

23-Sep-2007: Many templates, such as Infobox_German_Location, have been written in the typical one-liner style, with much of the source code written as a long string of nested "{{..}}" expressions, rather than as indented source code. The effect of the one-liner coding has been rambling expressions:

{{#if:|then|{{#if:|then}}|else{{#if:|then|else}}}}

However, it is possible to write the template code in a more structured, indented style, to align if-statements and others, such as when checking to display the mayor's name:

{{#ifexist: {{{Bürgermeister|{{{mayor|}}}}}}
|<!--then-wikilink-->[[{{{Bürgermeister|{{{mayor|}}} }}}]]
|<!--else-nolink-->{{
#ifeq:{{{Bürgermeister|{{{mayor|<noinclude>x</noinclude>}}}}}}|x
|<!--then-say-text-->{{{Bürgermeister or mayor}}}
|<!--else-show-name-->{{{Bürgermeister|{{{mayor|}}} }}}
}}<!--endifeq-->
}}<!--endifexist-->

Decades of computer-language design has shown that coding 2 nested if-statements as indented, across 8 lines, is preferable to a compact "one-liner" string that wraps onto only 3 lines of text. Although the source code becomes over twice as long, it is easier for others to read and modify, for inserting more if-statements within the indented structure. Many people writing the one-liner templates, as a wrapped string of source code, know full well how to write structured, indented source code, but there has been a wiki sub-culture of one-liner coding that has dominated the writing of templates. It takes time to re-write and clarify all that condensed one-liner coding.

The current coding of template Infobox_German_Location has involved many one-liner sections; however, the template code can be re-written to use the more structured, indented-code style, over time. -Wikid77 04:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • 30-Sep-2007: I have indented the coding for "Website" (been busy and can't believe a week has passed!). I tried to indent coding for the "image_plan" map, but template went spastic so didn't add those indented lines. Note that template row-tokens ("{{!-}}") must be in column 1. A syntax-checker would help debug the indented code. -Wikid77 15:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indenting template code

23-Sep-2007: The template code can be indented onto separate lines; however, the double-brace "{{" typically cannot be indented past column 1 on a line, so the "#if" or "#ifeq" must be indented apart from the "{{" double-brace. Leaving the double-brace at the end of the previous line might be the easiest split:

<!--previous line--> {{
#ifexpr: {{{Az}}} < {{{Bz}}}
|<!--then-show--> Yes, Az lower than Bz={{{Bz}}}.
|<!--else-show--> No, Az NOT lower than Bz.
}}<!--endifexpr-->

In the above example, the double-brace "{{" is left on the previous line, separated from the indented "#ifexpr" on the subsequent line. Indenting a double-brace can cause the whole line to be treated as a quote-box, as follows:

 {{#ifexpr: {{{A}}}={{{B}}} <!--this indented line became this box-->

Since an indented double-brace might be treated as a quote-box, the double-brace could be left on the previous line, split from the indented "#ifexpr" line. -Wikid77 04:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Impossible templates

23-Sep-2007: Okay, yes, working on the wiki templates can be very difficult. Detailed templates, such as the Infobox_German_Location, involve so many details that they rarely get properly tested and restructured for logical sequence, compared to the work needed to develop professional software. In a sense, these templates would not have been available at this time, due to the many man-hours needed for the full complex development, so these are "impossible templates" which wouldn't even exist now, except at this current level of "stub" or "prototyping" software. Please encourage experienced computer programmers to help develop these templates, because the MediaWiki language is only a beta-level technology, and disciplined designers are needed to engineer better templates patched for that beta-level language. Thanks. -Wikid77 20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Along with many design problems in the MediaWiki software used by Wikipedia, are the numerous simple bugs. For example (in Sept. 2007), when displaying an image, the "center|" option would chop the bottom pixel line of the image; similar chopping occurred when trying to resize an image. During Sept. 15-18 (2007), many images used from Wikimedia Commons went blank because the thumbnailer "disk array became full" as if no one saw the disk-space running low. Most of the underlying technology has been in an infantile state for years; of course, software people burn-out trying to fix those problems, and then wiki editors are forced to waste hours working around simple bugs that persist for years. At this stage, plan hours to perform a simple task, and remember that many others are also suffering and frustrated. However, Wikipedia is an interesting study in failed concepts. If they "fail to plan, plan to fail" is true in this situation as well. Be patient, expect more problems, and learn from the mistakes. -Wikid77 14:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] District links

I noticed that some districts in Schleswig-Holstein do not get an automatic link in the infobox, see for instance Heide (district Dithmarschen), Westerland, Germany (Nordfriesland), Eutin (Ostholstein), Rendsburg (Rendsburg-Eckernförde), Schleswig, Schleswig-Holstein (Schleswig-Flensburg), Bad Segeberg (Segeberg), Itzehoe (Steinburg) and Bad Oldesloe (Stormarn). Any idea why that is, and how to fix it? Markussep Talk 16:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Same for the Oder-Spree district in Brandenburg, see Wiesenau, Marburg-Biedenkopf in Hesse (e.g. Marburg) and Vulkaneifel in Rhineland-Palatinate (Daun, Germany). I see a pattern: they're all districts without " (district)" in the page name. Markussep Talk 11:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed (i hope). After Mr. Wikid77's good recent work on this template, a number of errors (like this one) crept back into the system. - 52 Pickup 18:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It works, thanks!!! Markussep Talk 18:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this infobox so wide?

Look at Worms, Germany: it takes up more than two-thirds of the width of the page! I don't know how to fix this, but I'm sure the template could be thinner and still contain all the same information. Does anyone know how to change it? Terraxos 15:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That was the wrong dash in the elevation that caused an overlong line.
But I have a more widespread problem the the lageplan which causes a similar issue which I can't track at the moment - see Ehrenkirchen. Strangely enaugh it shrinks in the preview. Agathoclea 10:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Live template was modified, without prior testing, and widened 21Oct2007, which introduced a coding bug for the past 5 days. See next topic. -Wikid77 11:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Apart from the now-solved problem with Worms, there is still one problem with the Worms infobox. The image used at the top of the box is too tall. The box is already rather long and so it has been said numerous times that if an image is to be used at all, then use an image that is taller than it is wide. - 52 Pickup 17:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Worms
Worms
  • 28-Oct-2007: Image solved: I've put a Worms-skyline image from the German wiki into the infobox and moved Worms-Cathedral below the box. The skyline shows the Nibelungen Bridge + Rhine, as a better overview. -Wikid77 09:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, if you do not specify an image size, the image should match the default box width. - 52 Pickup 10:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Testing template/bugs

26-Oct-2007: I fixed the template coding bug (from 21Oct2007) that put an extra "{{{width" prefix at the top of the code. It is important to NOT modify Template:Infobox_German_Location as the live version, without prior testing in a separate copy. For editing, please create (edit) a copy as "User:XXX/Template:Infobox_German_Location" and test against your username "XXX" (in edit-preview mode, without saving live articles during testing). The live template is used in nearly 3,000 articles, with 500 more expected. -Wikid77 11:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

500? Make that nearer 9000. Agathoclea 13:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Show-Preview reveals longterm Wikipedia

26-Oct-2007: Some wiki-servers might be running an older version of the template "Infobox_German_Location" perhaps as a cached file. Regardless of whatever cache files, the current templates can be accessed by editing an article (unchanged) and clicking Show-Preview. The wiki "Show Preview" option reveals how the stored article will appear once all cache-files and wiki-servers are updated to reflect the current changes. I realize the bizarre wide-screen infoboxes (spanning 2/3 of screen) are irritating, but they seem to be temporary leftovers which should go away soon. Again, edit a file (without changing) and click bottom "Show Preview" to see how an article would look after Wikipedia stabilizes. That's the only sanity I can recommend with these bizarre cache-file, multi-server confusions. -Wikid77 22:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] no coa

There was a change some time ago which caused a COA of "kein" to be displayed as unknown rather than as none. With the current flurry of activity on the template it might be worth looking at. Agathoclea 21:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of images that are currently on offer

The image used on the German wiki, no English version available

The dummy image that I put up a while ago as an alternative

The "image unknown" image currently used
The 2nd image was replaced with the 3rd with this edit, and I'm not sure exactly why this was done. If the 3rd image is used, then it suggests that a CoA exists but we do not know what it is - which is untrue and therefore confusing. If anything, for the moment, the 2nd image should be used. If an English version of the 1st image were to be made, that would also be nice. A long time ago I played around with simply removing any kind of CoA image if we know that no CoA exists, but that looked a bit too clumsy.
A while back, I brought the matter up at WP:HV - link - but unfortunately there was no consensus there on what should be done, but if we could come up with something, they would be interested to hear it. - 52 Pickup 17:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the one who made the change was not implying a preference in solution but was looking to replace an en-image with a commons image. I'd say revert to option 2. Agathoclea 09:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. - 52 Pickup 17:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization problem

The automatic categorization goes wrong somehow, see for instance Lörrach, and Category:Municipalities in for a collection of problem articles. It seems the template has a problem with square brackets around the state name, see for instance this diff. Markussep Talk 14:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is another leftover problem that has come up from the merger of Infobox Town DE into this infobox. Before the conversion, entries for this infobox were to have no wikilinks - the wikilinking was done automatically. Because no wikilinks were to be used, the various switches in the template code did not include the linked states as options. This has now been corrected.
Another problem with the conversion is that articles that previously used Infobox Town DE did not specify what type of a location it was. If the "Art" parameter (now also available in English as "type") is not filled in, then the entry is by default classed as a municipality (as was the case for Lörrach, a town). There are a number of things that need to be considered (and altered) when looking at articles that used Infobox Town DE. To illustrate, see this diff for Lörrach - 52 Pickup 15:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
An important point worth repeating: Once "Art/type" is specified (or left blank if it is a municipality), any manual "Towns in..." categories must be deleted. Otherwise, you may have entries incorrectly belonging to two different categories (eg. "Municipality" and "Town"). - 52 Pickup 15:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it! The infoboxes without (or with incorrect) "Art/type" fields are problematic. Maybe something to fix once all articles (for a state) have infoboxes, then we can compare the categories with the related German ones, and we can cross-check the Towns and Municipalities categories for duplicate entries using AWB. Markussep Talk 18:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I am working my way through Bavaria at the moment removing all Category:Towns in Bavaria to see what is left over after and to see how it will match the German counterpart and then adjust accordingly.

[edit] English params and density

I just had to go to German parameters to fix a faulty density in Füssen. Is this a general issue? Agathoclea (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed this particular error before, apparently the infobox sees 14.441 (with the dot as thousands separator as in German) as about 14 inhabitants, hence the very low pop. density. I'm not sure whether there is a way to detect this automatically. Markussep Talk 12:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
That explains it. I just took the easy route and copied the German data and that fixed that issue. Agathoclea (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Added decimal check. This problem shouldn't come up too often, but if it does, articles will now be listed in the maintenance category under "D". - 52 Pickup (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] convert this template for below villages and boroughs

Is there a writeup already about which template to use if the place is not a municipality like Rueckers? Agathoclea (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

At the moment there is no template for such lower subdivisions. In the meantime, I made some stop-gap changes to this template a while ago to cater for suburbs and villages - and just made the corresponding changes to Rueckers. This is not an elegant solution, but I haven't come up with anything else so far. There are a number of dedicated infoboxes used for subdivisions of various cities (eg. Template:Infobox Frankfurt Stadtteil) which may be combined into an all-purpose infobox for lower-level divisions one day, and then any articles which incorrectly use this infobox can be tagged for conversion. But it will be a while before that happens. - 52 Pickup (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This will come very handy in the upcoming municipal changes. Agathoclea (talk) 11:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates title Expression error...

{{editprotected}}Please use default values for coordinate values, as {{coord}} displays an error with empty arguments. This is seen on many articles, e.g. Dillenburg, where lat_sec and lon_sec are empty or missing. I suggest:

<!-- ----------------------------------- Generate "Coord" function
-->{{#if: {{{lat_deg|<noinclude>x</noinclude>}}} | {{Coord|{{{lat_deg|}}}|{{{lat_min|}}}|{{{lat_sec|}}}|N|{{{lon_deg|}}}|{{{lon_min|}}}|{{{lon_sec|}}}|E |display=title |type:{{

changed to:

<!-- ----------------------------------- Generate "Coord" function
-->{{#if: {{{lat_deg|<noinclude>x</noinclude>}}} | {{Coord|{{{lat_deg|51}}}|{{{lat_min|00}}}|{{{lat_sec|00}}}|N|{{{lon_deg|9}}}|{{{lon_min|00}}}|{{{lon_sec|00}}}|E |display=title |type:{{

51°N,9°E are the coordinates on the Germany article, Thanks – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 10:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Y Done I have left the degrees fields without defaults, as if lat_deg is not specified, the co-ordinates will not display, and if lon_deg is not specified, an error is entirely appropriate. Happy‑melon 14:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point, and it appears to work. Thanks. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 15:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German subdivision infobox templates

Please consider changing the "European city infobox templates" category to "German subdivision infobox templates", for finer-grain specification. --Adoniscik(t, c) 04:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Category added. I left the "European city infobox templates" category there since it still makes sense to use that category too. I've also added this category to other relevant templates, and numbered according to level (1=state, etc.) Also, note that there is a similar-sounding category called "German regions templates". - 52 Pickup (deal) 14:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic linking of mayors

As can be seen above in section #One-liner coding, this template seems to automatically link the name of the mayor if there happens to be an article of that name. The apparent idea is

  1. that mayors should be linked if they have an article, which is fine
  2. mayors that don't meet WP:Notability should not be linked.
  3. to relieve the editors from the task of looking up if the mayor has an article to link to.

Now it seems to me that these three goals are impossible to fulfill at the same time:

  1. Sometimes a mayor is notable, but doesn't have an article yet, so a red link is justified. In that case the editor can manually set the link, something easy to forget as one is used to the template automatically doing the work.
  2. Sometimes it happens that several persons have the same name, and one of them meets Notability and thus has a Wikipedia article, and another one of them is the mayor of some small town in Germany, an example being Thomas Kuhn, philosopher, not an uncommon German name, a name-mate of his being mayor of Bartholomä, population about 2,000, and the guy hardly having a chance to meet Notability. So now with every mayor not considered notable, one has to check for the mayor's name's article, and if it exists, create a workaround like this to create a red link: [2]. It seems impossible to achieve the best solution: no link at all.

So to me it seems better to leave the decision whether to create a link or not up to the editor. Or, if at en we really consider all mayors of any town notable, the template should link the mayor no matter if the article exists. Or is there anything I haven't noticed? Salutes, --dealerofsalvation 05:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The autolinking was implemented in an attempt to make things easier for editors and works rather well in other templates. But it has indeed become clear that when it comes to using this template, even when a mayor might be notable, the name is still given with wikilinks anyway (e.g. Frankfurt). Perhaps it might be best to disable autolinking for this template. Any objections? 52 Pickup (deal) 08:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've seen many wrong links like the Thomas Kuhn example, so I would support removing the automatic link. We could check the Category:Mayors of places in Germany for broken links afterwards. Markussep Talk 20:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demonyms

I think an optional field for demonyms would be expedient. Demonyms are normally created with the -er suffix but cities like Saarbrücken, Hannover, Emden, Bremen or Dresden have irregular or uncertain demonyms and therefore displaying them in such cases would be an advantage. Geo-Loge (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean demonyms in German, like Dresdner, Bremer etc.? I don't think that's interesting enough to add to the infobox. Markussep Talk 20:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the demonyms ending with -er are common in English, too. The question is how they conclude the root in irregular cases. Geo-Loge (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if there are commonly used demonyms in English for many towns in Germany, apart from Berlin(er), Frankfurt(er), Hamburg(er). The German demonyms are more suitable for Wiktionary IMO. They (and English demonyms) could be mentioned in the body text of the article, but the infobox is really meant as a summary of information about the place. Markussep Talk 11:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
As long as there are not the Hannover dwellers in English language there must be some demonyms. I asked for that due to I saw some example of cities using the Template:Infobox Settlement which includes the field. Is the (english) demonym of Cologne Kölner or is it Colognian (Cologner sounds very strange to me)? I don't know but I think it is basic knowledge which should be part of the infoboxes in some case. Geo-Loge (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Granted the information might be interesting, but let's not get carried away either. There is probably all kinds of information that would be interesting to include in an infobox. For someone who is interested in infrastructure, they might feel the inclusion of miles of sewers pipe in a city; just to make an extreme example. Though I find your suggestion fascinating I do not see where we could find a definitive source of English demonyms for cities in Germany. Who is the authority?imars (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Well who is the authority? A question that is relevant even for headwords which follow common names instead of proper names in the english wikipedia. Well English uses the -er suffix for demonyms as well the German (due to it is the germanic suffix). Normally placenames are German and therefore demonyms are derived from German. Exceptions are examples like "latin" Cologne. If English language has an own name for a city, it must have an own demonym. So who is the authority? Someone determined that it is Liverpudlian not Liverpooler; so there must be someone ;) at least the spirit of commonalty that is referenced that often.
Of course there are a douzen possible basic information that can be add to the infoboxes. The demonym field is not my invention, I found it in articles like Cardiff and I thought it would be a great complement for articles about german cities due to there are Emder but also Mindener (Minder is not that lucky ;) ). Geo-Loge (talk) 08:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)