Template talk:Infobox Municipality pt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portugal Portal
TemplateInfobox Municipality pt is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
Portugal To-do:


Contents

[edit] My edits

I've made several edits to the box and in the articles where it was included.

  • I've first changed the Parishes field to No. of parishes, as it is much easier to implement, some articles had a list of the municipality's parishes in the infobox, although that seems nice to municipalities with a reduced number of parishes, we would, therefore, have a 100 lines long infobox in Barcelos, for example. The field now indicates the number of parishes with an internal wikilink to the Parishes subsection.
  • I also removed the footnotes because no article was using that.
  • I've tried to chage the field "ocasion" to "occasion", for grammatical reasons, but it is too hard changing the field in all articles where the template it included, I think this field is a bit obsolete, as many municipalities celebrate the holiday for non-religious reasons and it is a bit difficult to explain that in the box, example: "The day the municipality achieved independence from ...".
That's it, if anyone has objections, just say. Afonso Silva 14:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war

People, lets calm down a bit and try to understand this. First of all, everyone is able (and even encouraged) to be bold and edit the articles, and if they do it thinking they're improving the article in question there's no need to be mad about it. In this case, the template was built by many people and after some discussion we reached a consesus regarding the template. After some time, I felt the need to add the location of the municipalities and so, I added the location entry with the region, subregion and old region. Pedro did some edits to the template and added more welcomed info, namely: the foundation (foral). I agree with this addition. Regarding the edits to the template presentation I think Pedro should have said something here first, or in the talk page of the main contributors, since this template afects more than 800 articles. As for the the presentation, I personally dislike it. In the other hand I didn't like Mário's (the Artist Formerly Known as Afonso Silva) edits to the presentation, since I really prefer the old simple wikitable. As for João Correia's reverts, I have to say that even if you do not agree with Pedro's edits, and even if you feel that the majority of the community also feels the same, it was better if you had talked to Pedro or posted your reasons in the talk page. I mean, if another contributer strongly modifies a template and doesn't say anything in its talk page, you (João) are encouraged to talk to the person and try to solve the issue without reverting things with a "revert vandalism" edit summary or with a "minor edit".

My proposed solution: lets discuss first (and again) the presentation of the template, namely:

  1. the class of the table (wikitable, Mario's version or Portuguese wikipedia version)
  2. the coexistence of the flag and coat of arms
  3. the changes in the "density info" location
  4. the moving of the "location info" downwards
  5. the inclusion of the website inside the main table instead of the lower cased bottom.

I hope I'm helping. Please, shake hands first and then start working as a community. Joaopais 00:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Right now, they are both blocked for three hours. May that let them cool off a bit. Circeus 00:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope so. Now, here's my proposal
  • We keep the foundation info
  • We change the table to class="infobox geography"
  • We use the flag only, instead of the coat of arms or coat of arms and flag together. This is because the colors of the flag have a considerable importance. As the coat of arms is present in all municipalities flags, we simply don't need it.
  • As for the changes I think it would be better to have the geographic features first (location, coordinates, area); then the population (with density); then history and politics with (first) the foundation, then the mayor and party; and finally, society with the municipal holiday. The website should be in the bottom or between the mayor and the holiday. Tell me what do you think. Joaopais 02:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


My apologies to Pedro for not speaking to him directly, I'm not a very active user and therefore i'm not accustomed to wiki-etiquette. I believe i wasn't at any point rude, and if my Pedro got offended by my comments I sincerely apologize. I'm here to give a positive contribution, not to get involved in this type of wars.
As for the edits. I do not oppose major edits, i just believe that, in the case of templates like these that connect to a few hundredth pages, when editing one should exercise some caution. Major edits that include the introduction of a new field should be discussed and approved, in order to avoid leaving pages with an orphan entry. And if and when they are approved the persons responsible for these changes should also be responsible for changing all the pages it links to. Also, when editing instructions should be given in the talk page in how to implement these changes, so that every user can use the template.
  • I do not agree with using the portuguese wiki version because in my opinion the flag doesn't ad any relevant information and just occupies space. In the rare cases where the flag colors have relevant meaning, the flag could easily be shown in another part of the article where one explains symbology behind it. If at the end we chose to use the flag, we should as soon as possible go trough all the articles where this template is used and change them;
  • I agree with Mário's changes, because I find the present styling of the template very elegant and pleasing to the reader;
  • I agree with Joaopais proposal on the order of the fields because I believe these changes will introduce a more logical disposition of the fields.

João Correia 04:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't there been discussion of merging this into {{Infobox City}} altogether? Now that the general infobox includes fields for subdivision,there doesn't seem to be any problem. Circeus 11:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately the infobox city doesn't have sufficient info and relevant fields for the Portuguese municipalities. As for the flag and CoA, my point was that, if you have the flag you have instantly the flag colors and the CoA, since every municipality flag has the coat of arms in the middle. The flag+CoA would occupy much more space with something that repeats itself. So I propose to abolish the coat of arms, and use the flag only. So, Pedro, do you agree with the disposition of the fields I proposed yesterday? About the anthem and motto, I propose that this data should be added in the article text, since not every municipality has them, and we should stick to the things that they all share. The other solution would be having a field for the anthem and motto, and when the municipality hadn't any, a None should appear. And, Pedro, do you believe that having another template is good? Don't you think that it would be better to have them all with the same template? And João, the reason for me to prefer a simple wikitable is that almost every geographical article has it. But the community is welcomed to chose the best solution. So, who am I to say it should be changed? Glad you worked things out. And by the way, thanks Circeus. Joaopais 19:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I forgot to say something. I quite liked Pedro's edits in a way, except for the flag+CoA and some changes in disposition. I remebered something that was pretty good: the links on region, subregion, former region, district and autonomous region. Joaopais 19:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and this is also important. If we make changes, we should add the <!-- --> tag, then change all municipalities, and only after that we should remove the tag. (Sorry for triple posting) Joaopais 19:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As for circeus ip blocking I disliked that, as the revert war was over when João Correira proposed a vote. Thus I created a separate one, the rv war was well over when he decided to block without any warning.

As for the rest:

  • The style isn't also the best. As for motto and anthem I agree, most municipalities don't have that. So we will almost always have "none", "none" and "none". Only if we add a "footnote" that can be used for anything.
  • Some municipalities haven't an establishment date. That occurs in ancient Cities/Municipalities, such as Braga or Porto –there's another issue.
  • As for variables not being updated, those can be updated by anyone editing the article.
  • I think both the COA and Flag should be featured, for two reasons: visibility of features of the COA and consistency with the rest of Wikipedia's templates. Proper flags can be downloaded from here: http://www.fisicohomepage.hpg.ig.com.br/

--Pedro 21:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


I'm glad this issue is settled. We should take advantage of this opportunity and discuss which fields should be included and which shouldn't.
As for the flag issue, when I first created this template I've modified the template used in the portuguese wikipedia omitting the flag. Because I believe the flag doesn't carry any significant meaning, and all the meaningful symbology is contained in the coat of arms. But since I'm not an expert in these matters, if the others feel the flag is important and should be included I will agree with them.
I agree with Joaopais when he says the flag+coat standing side by side occupies to much space, taking the reader's attention away from the article itself. So in my opinion if we choose to use the flag there are two courses of action we can take:
  • simply substitute the coat of arms for the flag
  • put the coat + flag align vertically, and therefore maintaining the current size of the infobox
Furthermore, and this was my main concern when I reverted Pedro's edits, an image field when omitted, unlike the others that go silent, leaves an large blank field. Therefore, if we opt for the flag we should divide among ourselves the task of going through all municipalities articles and including the flag.
Therefore I call for a vote. João Correia 11:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Proposed changes

[edit] Misc

Should be changed to allow use of coordinates like this: 38°43′N, 9°11′W --Explendido Rocha 14:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Should be added 2 fields: In the portugues articles ( non-formated ) we can find the flag many times, maybe there should a box below the coat of arms for this. And one for email, after the "website". Multicooker 12:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flag

  • Coat of arms
João Correia 11:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Flag
Joaopais 12:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Flag + Coat of arms
Pedro 15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Field order

  • Current
João Correia 11:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Joaopais 12:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox style

  • Current
João Correia 11:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • General wiki sytle
Pedro 12:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Joaopais 12:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New fields

  • Add date of formation
Joaopais 12:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Pedro 15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Could we instead of the formation date (which some times is difficult to determine if not impossible), use the date the town was given the municipality statute (Foral). João Correia 16:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. And if possible, we include both. Okay? Joaopais 18:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Field for deletion

  • Occasion
When I created the template including this field seamed like a good idea, because I thought that it would always end up being some saint. But it as showed to be more complicated than I initially expected, and some times it’s very difficult to explain which occasion the municipal holiday celebrates in the limited space of the infobox. So I propose the deletion of this field from the template, because in my view this is the type of info that is better included in the article's text. João Correia 16:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The occaasion was even the best field that this template had (a part from the ones that were similar to the template in WK:PT. Because of that, it is not always a saint, it can be foundation date, a notable resident, and it is not always the "official" patron saint that the church choose.--Pedro 18:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complement EU

On December 16, 2004, The World Factbook, a publication of the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) added an entry for the European Union. [1] According to the CIA, the European Union was added because the EU "continues to accrue more nation-like characteristics for itself". Their reasoning was explained in this small statement in the introduction:

The evolution of the European Union (EU) from a regional economic agreement among six neighboring states in 1951 to today's supranational organization of 25 countries across the European continent stands as an unprecedented phenomenon in the annals of history... ... for such a large number of nation-states to cede some of their sovereignty to an overarching entity is truly unique... ... the EU ... has many of the attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, anthem, founding date, and currency, as well as an incipient common foreign and security policy in its dealings with other nations. In the future, many of these nation-like characteristics are likely to be expanded. Thus, inclusion of basic intelligence on the EU has been deemed appropriate as a new, separate entity in The World Factbook. However, because of the EU's special status, this description is placed after the regular country entries.

I might add that EU citizens have EU- numberplates, -passports, drivinglicense, the EU institutions, and regular election. I hope you support the small extension I made... all the best Lear 21 18:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose here as the other places where this has been suggested, see also: Template talk:Infobox City Poland Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Strong oppose for reasons stated at Template talk:Infobox City Poland and Berlin --Bob 23:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates

It would be wise to upgrade this template to use {{coord}}, which has a range of options for data input, user-preferred presentation format, and a geo microformat. Andy Mabbett 21:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)