Template talk:Infobox Serbia municipality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Serbia Portal Infobox Serbia municipality is part of the WikiProject Serbia, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. 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 Project's 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.)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Test

Test:

Novi Sad Нови Сад Ujvidek
Location of Novi Sad within Serbia
Coordinates: 45°15′N 19°51′E / 45.25, 19.85
Country	Serbia
District	South Bačka
Settlements	14
Government
- Mayor	Maja Gojković (SRS) (since 2004)
Area [1]
- Municipality	702.7 km² (271.3 sq mi)
Population (2002 census)[2]
- Total	215,659
- Municipality	298,139
Time zone	CET (UTC+1)
- Summer (DST)	CEST (UTC+2)
Postal code	{{{postal_code}}}
Car plates	NS
Area code	+381 21
Website: http://www.gradnovisad.org.yu

[edit] Contents

Here are my thoughts about the contents of the infobox:

• I omitted "city area" and "population density" from {{Serbian cities 3}}; I doubt there are data for all cities, and they're hardly relevant for small cities.
• I'm also considering removal of "Mayor" field—except for big cities, the information will be difficult to maintain, and most mayors would be hardly notable.
• Cities (Belgrade, Novi Sad, Niš, Kragujevac) could maybe use more information. As an option, we could fork a {{Infobox Serbia city}}, similar to {{Serbian cities 2}} with additional information (municipalities etc.)
• About the maps: I'm not positive about the completeness, as the base map dates few years back; it's possible that e.g. Mrčajevci have became a municipality in the meantime.
  • Also, I'm not sure whether I solved Kosovo in the best way (I left it white, but maybe I should have erased its municipality borders, which are likely to change soon anyway). Oh well... if someone wants to fix it, I can e-mail him the original maps (so that he doesn't have to download all from Commons).

Duja 08:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not know about this template change. I think that current template "Serbian cities 3" is quite fine. The information about city or municipality area, population density or name of the mayor is useful for Wikipedia readers. As more people contribute to Wikipedia, they will add all data to infobox of every city article. It must be noted that current articles are about both - cities and their municipalities, thus, the infobox describe both, and every municipality have a mayor. I think that we should keep a mayor section. All these municipalities also have land area. Population density might not be so important and could be removed. The "License plate code" also is not something which all cities have. Maybe we should have two templates: one for large cities which have "License plate code" and another for those which do not have it. However, the two templates should not be too different, just in few details. PANONIAN (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove municipality's land area, just town's land area. I doubt there's data except perhaps for major cities, and even then it's questionable how one measures "city area" and why is it important. As for population density, I have no problem with adding it, provided there's data (plus, it can be easily calculated as municipality population/area). In my opinion, license plate code should be kept; well, every town has it, but maybe it isn't its own (just like phone area code); e.g Vrbas will have "NS".

I took {{Serbian cities 3}} as the model, just a) I think it should be under this name, as with other countries b) "Subdivisions" is not applicable to most towns c) I fixed the left-column links to more sensible ones (e.g. "Area code" links to "List of dialing codes in Serbia"). You're certainly welcome to improve it; I just wanted to have a discussion in advance before starting applying it unilaterally (as every subsequent change is a major pain). Duja 08:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, good job on the infobox, I like it. It has all of the necessary information, and in a way... It looks more sophisticated than the current one. In my opinion, we should use it. --Krytan talk 23:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moj predlog

What do you think? Covers all the info, my only concern is that it might be a bit too long. Also, does anyone know how to insert optional parameters (for the governing parties rubric)? --estavisti 23:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Optional ones are doable but tricky (& ugly). Check out e.g. Template:Infobox_City_Russia and the Category:Esoteric_templates. Duja 14:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the contents, I dislike:

• Subdivisions: Saying that there are e.g. 6 villages in the municipality is a non-information and just makes a clutter. Instead, an {{navbox Čačak}} can be made for every municipality (I doubt we would ever get there though).
• Governing parties: cool idea, but IMO overly ambitious. Would require substantial maintaince later. Optionality can resolve the problem, but...
• Population density: Not too important piece of info, and easily calculable from population and area for statistic nerds. Also solved by optionality. Duja 14:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

For the first point, you should discuss it with PANONIAN, as I have no strong feelings either way, and he's the one who wants to include it. I don't think adding the governing parties is overly ambitious: there are only 80 or so municipalities in Serbia (excluding Kosovo), and the elections are every four years. I agree we can kick the Population Density rubric out: Panonian suggested it, but isn't bothered if it isn't included, and I don't care either. --estavisti 19:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction, there's about 150 municipalities in Serbia excluding Kosovo. Elections are only theoretically every four years; we'll likely have ones next spring, and re-elections in particular municipalities are frequent because of "falls of the government" due to assembly blockades, coalition breaks, receivership etc. Duja 13:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess you should update Municipalities of Serbia if you know something I don't, and I guess I should stop trusting Wikipedia. :-) Also, I know about re-elections etc, the point is that it wouldn't be too much work. --estavisti 14:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It was based on a quick count of maps in my local folder (the same ones as on Commons). I have 115 maps in "Serbia" folder, and 43 in Vojvodina; no separate maps for Niš, Novi Sad and Kragujevac city municipalities (so there's more than that). I guess I should update Municipalities of Serbia. Duja 15:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I have no idea how to insert optional parameters, if you do, it would be good to have the option of adding up to, say, five parties (for the governing parties rubric). --estavisti 20:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

D'oh, I'm really short of time these days. I'll keep it in mind and give it a try (ping me if I forget). Duja 13:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is my opinion about table:

• 1. Cyrillic name should be first, not Latin.

No problem. --estavisti 14:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• 2. "Subdivisions" should be instead of "settlements" (Subdivisions are sometimes municipalities, not only settlements).

Well, Duja is against it being included at all, so you two'll have to come to a common view. I don't mind either way. --estavisti 14:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is more complex. If you write "settlements" in Belgrade infobox, it would be wrong because Belgrade is in fact divided into municipalities. Also, what are the settlements in the Čukarica municipality for example? It does not have settlements, but "mesne zajednice". The word "subdivisions" simply cover it all. And regarding the question whether this should be included at all, let just say like this: why somebody should read the entire Belgrade article to find information how many municipalities Belgrade have when he can find this in the infobox? PANONIAN (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you saw a minute later that this isn't intended for Belgrade and other cities. We could put mesne zajednice there, as (I think) that's the only subdivision of non-city municipalities. --estavisti 14:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• 3. The population part should not contain word "town" because some places are villages.

Are you sure? To my mind, being the seat of a municipal government is enough to classify a mesto as a town. Towns can be very small in English, it's a quite растегљив појам. --estavisti 14:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am sure. If one place is to be classified as a town, it should have several institutions like hospital, high school, etc. I have official publication with 2002 census results and all towns in Serbia are marked with letter "g" (gradsko naselje) in that publication. Places that are not marked with "g" are not towns, no matter if some of them are seats of municipalities. PANONIAN (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I wan't aware that "town" is an actual, official, status. A place without a high school and hospital could reasonably be called a town in English, but if it's a status, then maybe we could set the template to show town or village, depending on the municipality. I really don't understand the point of the arbitrary division between town and village - there are a few "villages" in Vojvodina that I consider small towns. --estavisti 14:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that "town" and "municipality seat" do not correspond 100% (Pećinci, Vladimirci on one side, Vrdnik on the other), I find it a nitpick for this particular usage: 95% of municipality seats are towns. We need a succinct, not 100% accurate term. Duja 15:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I just want to suggest that we do not use word "town" in the original template, but we should left the line empty, so when we write population figure in every article (in template there), then we can write either "town" either "village" depending on the status of the settlement. PANONIAN (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• 4. We should keep one place for some other additional information, for example in the case of Novi Sad, I would keep city motto and nickname. We do not need to have 100% same templates for all cities because cities are not 100% same.

This is not intended to be for cities (Belgrade, Niš, Novi Sad, Kragujevac). It's for all other municipalities. However, we could insert an optional parameter for mottos, I seem to remember Kraljevo has one, for instance. --estavisti 14:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Aha, ok then. I did not understand it correctly. PANONIAN (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• 5. And just to say that I do not agree at all with general idea to replace old templates. I really do not see what is wrong with old templates and I see no reason to change them. But if you want to do it I will not stop you. I want just to suggest that you should not change old template, but you should create new one, and then replace it in the articles. If you made these changes into old template it will immediatelly cause changes into all articles where it is placed and it really will look bad. PANONIAN (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't going to, don't worry. --estavisti 14:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusions

Hopefully we can agree on this and start the implementation.
1) Subdivisions - have it renamed to local communities (mjesne zajednice).
2) No municipalities seem to have an official motto, we can leave this out for now.
3) Governing parties should have the option to have up to 5 parties listed (just in case :-)). The population rubric should have optional town/village selection (by making two optional parameters, only one of which is used for any single article).
Hope this is OK. --estavisti 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 2 and 3, but there is problem with 1: it is more easy to find information how many settlements are in municipality than how many are local communities. In another words, I have data about number of settlements in all municipalities in Serbia, but I have no data about number of local communities (and I believe that you do not have it either). Furthermore, the statistical office of serbia in its publications list settlements, not local communities, thus, I believe that settlements are the subdivision units that we should use (or we can list both - number of settlements and of local communities). PANONIAN (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with you as regards town/village, but the way I suggested, it's easier to keep up the cross-article standardisation. Otherwise, I predict we'll have many people messing it up. For the mjesne zjaednice, OK - but what is the official status, if any, of naselja/settlements? --estavisti 03:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The only official status of settlements is if they have their own local community. :)) Anyway, the best choice is word subdivisions, so we can writte there either settlements either local communities, either both. PANONIAN (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've got no strong feelings about subdivisions; I just think it's difficult to maintain and not really informative. 2 and 3 agreed; I'd stick with "town" as simple enough, besides, it's just an infobox—the town/village status is indicated in the first sentence of the article and unlikely to confuse anyone.

Check out the reference I put at the end of Municipalities of Serbia, it contains a lot of necessary data. I'll jump in and (try to) make the optional arguments and conversion with AWB. We didn't agree about the template name? It doesn't seems overly consistent across WP—maybe "Infobox Serbia town"? Duja 20:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, agreed. The only thing is, town/village should be differentiated. --estavisti 21:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mayor

Serbian law has a different word for mayor (градоначеник) and municipality president (председник општине). Zemun, Obrenovac, Mladenovac, Petrovaradin, Aerodrom, ... have a mayor, and it is a mayor of Belgrade, Kragujevac and Novi Sad, but they also have a municipality president. Knowing that, how we can use the same word ??? --Göran Smith 15:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The cesid web site use word "gradonačelnik" (Mayor) for municipality president: http://www.cesid.org/lokalni2004/rezultati.jsp?opstina=70084 Problem is that word "municipality president" make infobox too large and then infobox overlap with contents and that is very bad for article aesthetics. PANONIAN (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, but then municipalities in Belgrade, Niš, Novi Sad and Kragujevac MUST have different inboxes, with municipality president. --Göran Smith 19:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But, Cesid is not some valid source. In the Serbian LAW, there are municipalities which have municipality presidents, and city`s have mayors. If the English language has a different word for "predsednika opštine" and "gradonačelnik", why would we translate all that in Mayor. If you put Mayor, people assume that Subotica, or Inđija, Kruševac,... have city status, but in fact, they don't. If inbox is to wide, put Municipality >br< president --Göran Smith 19:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I simply object to the size of infobox here. I do not care if there are words "mayor" or "municipality president" there because both words are correct by my opinion. However, if you want to have word "municipality president" then please try not to make infobox too large with this word. PANONIAN (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency

Great. We have 4 (four, четири) cities and every article Novi Sad, Belgrade, Kragujevac and Niš uses a different fork of the infobox. I'm ok with the idea that the city template differs from the one for municipalities, but this was really too much waste of energy needed for other tasks. Duja► 15:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Municipality of...

We must add on top of inbox "Municipality of", because in every inbox on Wikipedia they use full and legal names, in this case full name of municipality. Because when people see Subotica, legally, they mean its a city, but in fact it is only a municipality. example of some inboxes: Republic of Serbia, Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, South Becka District, City of Belgrade, City of Novi Sad, Comune di Milano, etc. --Göran Smith 21:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Goran, the infoboxes are for both, municipalities and towns that are their seats, so it would be wrong that we write "municipality of". For example Kikinda article is about both, the city of Kikinda and the municipality of Kikinda, so the infoboxes are for both of them. I also suggest that we keep it like this because if we split these articles into separate articles about cities/towns and separate about municipalities, then we would have a bunch of stub articles which will only make for readers of Wikipedia harder to find information they are looking for. PANONIAN (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say to split municipality and seat of municipality articles! First of all, this is inbox for "Serbia municipality", not Serbian city! 90% of text in these articles are of town/city, and not of municipality, but, data from this inbox, like: Coat of arms, map, area, area code, license plates and mayor, these are all municipality information, and not of towns like Subotica, Bač, Temerin,... right? --Göran Smith 14:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, not right. :) For example, the infoboxes contain information about populations of the towns too, so no matter of their names, they are for both, towns and municipalities and we should consider them as such. PANONIAN (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Just 2 (population of town and coordinates) are of town and 11 (90%) are information from municipality. Inbox is for municipality and rest of the text (90%) is of that town. Can you clarify the logic? Example: if you are some Chinese or Canadian guy and you read Subotica article, and you see coat of arms, mayor, license plate ... would you assume that information is of some grater municipality or Subotica town? --Göran Smith 17:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

MOže netko drugi da da svoje mišljenje na osnovu ovog pročitanog? --Göran Smith 22:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say adding "Municipality of" is pretty redundant as it's obvious to anyone who reads the articles in question. It also looks very ugly and clutters up the look of the right hand area of the screen. So, I for one do not support adding this. My two pence. // estavisti 23:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not like it too because, as Estavisti said, it is bad for aesthetics and because, as I see it, the infoboxes are there for both, towns and their municipalities, so separating them would not be good. So, Goran, 90% of data from infobox might be about municipality, but what we will do with the rest 10%? It is there too. PANONIAN (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New infobox

Napravio sam novi infobox za gradove NI, KG, NS i BG :))) Mislim da je univerzalan, bez boje, tako da se lako uklapa u bilokakav text i ima sve podatke koji su potrebni za grad (ima i za milje i fite mere), slican je infoboxu za gradove, ... vidite i sami Template:Infobox Serbian City (ima primer na razgovoru), ako treba nesto sitno da se doradi, lako cemo :) --Göran Smith 22:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ja sam predložio Goranu da napravi infobox koji bismo koristili za sva četiri grada u Srbiji (Beograd, Novi Sad, Niš i Kragujevac), bilo je o tome već reči ranije. Dakle, hoću prvo da čujem da li se Duja i Estavisti načelno slažu oko korišćenja ovog šablona koji je napravio Goran, pa ću onda reći šta tu treba promeniti po mom mišljenju. PANONIAN (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ја се слажем, само треба малкице да се преправи. // estavisti 00:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Komentarisao sam tamo oko detalja; u načelu se slažem, to sam svakako ja namjeravoa da uradim.
P.S. Markirao sam Image:Novi Sad map 1.PNG sa {{duplicate}}. Ne marim naročito što je original "moj" nego je bezveze da postoje duplikati. Osim toga, savjetujem vam da uploadujete PD-slike na commons; isti je trud, a mogu se koristiti i na srpskoj Wikipediji. Duja► 14:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population density

Who deleted population density from this info box ??? This is important part of this infobox! --Göran Smith 19:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

Can someone add the option for flags, as municipalities have flags too... Thanks, --Bolonium (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)