Template talk:Infobox Kommune

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Norway Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Template This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Changes

Hello. I don't know if anyone will ever read this, but if you are reading this right now, please be informed that I have added Regions of Norway and Traditional districts of Norway to this template, and that I hope to have your assistance in filling in all the blank spaces that these additions have created. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 13:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, the addition of the greater regions seems superluous on this template since it is already prominently featured on Template:Infobox Fylke. So nevermind. 8-) // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 13:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why list the "districts"?

It seems quite odd that this template list "district" along with county. The districts have no official function, and some of them have not been a part of the state structure the past 800 years... I can not see any point in displaying this historic trivia information: Norway has a two level structure: county (fylke) and municipality (kommune).

Could we remove "district" from this template?

Ebben (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Multiple languages

We have a few municipalities in Norway with official name in two or even three languages, Porsanger is an example of this. The problem is the name part of the infobox; I would like to see the names listed something like

Porsanger kommune
Porsáŋggu gielda
Porsangin komuuni

Is there any way to accommodate this? (Note also that Sami language municipalities may use suohkan instead of gielda.) - BsL 00:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to address this issue by adding two alternative parameters, alt_names_first if the name(s) is to be before the Norwegian name and alt_names_last if it is to be below. (See: Gáivuotna Kåfjord and Porsanger) -  havarhen  | Talk 19:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Percentages of what?

What are the "areapercent" and "populationpercent" supposed to be a percentage of?

That's the kind of thing that is good to have on the template page inside a <noinclude/>.... --Alvestrand 10:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orders of magnitude

The new series of pages in the orders of magnitude hierarchy can typically be used when citing unitary measures, like this: 839 m². I propose that the area parameter be modified to allow for some application of this feature. __meco 20:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to do a workaround by applying {{pipe}} which didn't work, so I stand by my proposal to have this function implemented. __meco (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Demonym??????

Can someone get rid of the "demonym" entry when it's not filled in?

Adding low-value items like this (stronger wording not inserted) without defaulting it to "off" is hurtful to the articles that don't use it! --Alvestrand (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Blame me. :-) I assumed the demonym would be added to every municipality article pretty quickly, an assumption I obviously shouldn't have made. I'll add the demonym to the rest of the articles today or tomorrow, but in the mean time it won't appear when {{{demonym}}} is empty anymore. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 07:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Implement the standard Template:Infobox Settlement

It has been sugested to modify this template so that is use the Infobox Settlement-template. This will make it more flexible since that template has a lot more functions that is not implemented in this template. For instance it would be a good thing to show the location in all of Norway since that is something most people in the world know. If we do this the infobox will be used in the same way, but it will be easier to implement new feautures. Rettetast (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind how it is done. The info provided in the current box is good but is completely inflexible as a standard template. Now if you could add the photo and national pin point location map qualities to it so it looks just like standard I won't have any complaints. The graphics need improving, there isn't a problem with the info given ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend converting it to standard. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 22:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If we do end up converting Infobox Kommune to the standard Infobox Settlement box, it needs to be made clear in some way that the infobox is for municipalities, not cities, towns, villages or whatever. In Norway, these are far from the same thing; Bergen municipality, for example, contains large mountain and forest areas in addition to the city itself. We also don't want to end up with a situation where the articles on Lillestrøm, a town, and Skedsmo, the municipality Lillestrøm is located in, both have an infobox, as that would be extremely confusing. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have to main arguments, 1. Foreigners don't know where in Norway and 2. standardization.
the first one could easily be solved by just adding a small county map next to the local map. ex.
Røed (talk · no) 01:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


I have updated Lillestrøm and Skedsmo to both use the standard infobox {{Infobox Settlement}} so that all can see how it shows the difference between the municipality and the unincorporated city within the municipality. This is shown by the blue "settlement_type" banner and in the subdivision fields. The examples also show the clear advantage of using Infobox Settlement and its flexibility in a variety of situations. —MJCdetroit (yak) 02:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I find the box far to long. This goes to the current box as well, but get even worse when you get a national map in addition, you now have to scroll down to get any more info that maps and coat of arms from the box. The box is also 1/3 longer than the text in the article. Tho could be solved by putting the map and the CoA paralell instead of after eachother. I also fear the complexity and many optional parameters empty in the box could confuse new users editing (the box increased the size of the article by 250%). Røed (talk · no) 04:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Røed in regards to the scrolling issue. For easy comparison, I created a "standard" testcases page, at Template:Infobox Kommune/testcases. -- User:Docu

I think MJC's adaptment is a big improvement but I would like to see it include the locator and the municipal locator. The Norwegians on here are forgetting that one of the most important things is actually identifying where in the county it is first before reading the article. Now it may be common knowledge in Norway where everything is, but most people don't know where these places are. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 08:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well part of the reason I wanted it standard is because I not only intend adding infoboxes to all of the settlements on her ein Norway later like I did with Langesund but I also intend adding several hundred articles on smaller towns and villages in Norway. Now I'm sorry but I don't want to be tied down with having to use a Norwegian infobox when I can use standard ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 09:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to make a new template in my userspace using infobox settlement. The infobox is at User:Rettetast/Sandbox2. You can see it used at User:Rettetast/Sandbox. It uses all the parameters from the old template, but I have some problems with the map. Can you look at it and give your opinions. Feel free to edit it directly. I also suggest that we find a better map than Image:Norway-equidist.png. since I think it has to much colors. I would like a map that is more in the style of the old maps. Rettetast (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Fitting the COA and map alongside each other is exactly what I would have suggested. Rettetasts example is exactly how I would like it to look. Add photograph panorama it would be perfect ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 17:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Of the new ones I would prefer the second one with some changes. CoA is put on a single row, and the county map and national map is put in parallel on the second row because they are more related (but, then with the Image:Hordaland kart.png map series). This is also because it will illustrate the size differences better than the single dot (Vestfold and Finnmark has wast different sizes, but has the same map size in the box). I still don't want to have a picture in the box because I feel it will be to long. Also the new template should rather be put into this template than adding a new one since much of the maps/CoA is standardized allready, it would also keep the code in the articles more simple. Røed (talk · no) 18:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The last one in User:Rettetast/Sandbox seems fine to me if the image is taken out, and put into {[tl|Infobox kommune}} to prevent editing the articles get to complex. Røed (talk · no) 20:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I too prefer the last one, but I think the image should be kept. I believe the MOS recommends putting an illustration in the upper right corner of articles. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 20:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you too ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Bump. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 20:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just implement the agreed version, seem to be a consensus. But, put it in this template, so that we can do changes later without having to change every single one. Røed (talk · no) 22:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

New template at User:Rettetast/Sandbox2. See testcases, Bergen and Ålesund. I agree with Røed suggestion that the maps should be on the same line, but I have not managed to fix this. If we implement this we have to go through all the articles and fix some minor stuff so that the syntax will work. See this diff fo an idea. I wont do that before I get your go. Rettetast (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to Bodø too as an example, It's a bit to long for my preference because the lenght of the county, but I guess we can't satisfy all goods. Could be possible to set custom with tho. The link to the homepage should be active (able to click on) Røed (talk · no) 16:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, a county map as large as that *really* ain't needed. It should be just slightly larger than the map in the old template; the map really looks broken at the moment. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 17:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Under construction:-). Røed was talking about this version. The default is 150px but it can be changed. See Bodø. Fixed the link to the webpage at the bottom. Rettetast (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The county map is currently broken on most municipality pages, as the |county parameter is set to [[County]] in the templates in these articles. Removing the [[]]s would work, but we would then end up with |county not being consistent with |capital, |landscape and so on which require square brackets for the text to be linked. We *could* change them all to not requiring square brackets (e.g. changing "|seat = {{{capital}}}" to "|seat = [[{{{capital}}}]]"), but that would require us fixing the templates (by removing square brackets from "capital=x|" and so on) in all the municipality articles. This is something that should probably be discussed before implementing. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 11:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I was fixing this by doing edits like this, but you are correct that it becomes inconsistent with the other parameters. In the articles it will look the same though. The reason I had to do this was to get the county map to work. If you know how to make a fancy #if parameter that could fix it. How do you think we should proceed. I'm stopping my AWB edits for now. Rettetast (talk) 11:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well - you seem to have experience with AWB - wouldn't it be possible to change all the parameters to not requiring square-brackets and then implement the change in all the municipality articles using AWB? --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 14:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
A little bit harder, but it can be done. Not all parameters should be autolinked though, but county, landscape could be. I don't know if we should autolink capital. There are probably instances where the Administrative centre shouldnt have its own article.
I also want to draw your attention to a exxelent detail. If there exist an article such as Coat of arms of Ålesund it is automaticly wikilinked below the coat of arms. Want to do Coat of arms of Bergen anyone. Rettetast (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)