Template talk:Largest cities of the Republic of Macedonia
|WikiProject Republic of Macedonia||(Rated Template-class)|
Someone should double-check the population numbers, because changes like this one seem kinda suspicious, and generally the numbers don't seem to be correct.--Sisyphos23 (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the template to its original form, before involvement by me and IP130. The reasons for this are:
- with my reducing the list from 20 to 10 due to town size, I applied a more or less Dutch view on it (where a place of 10.000 inhabitants is still a village) instead of the local view (what means that a place of 10.000 inhabitants can be a sizeable place in relation to other places)
- the split done by IP130 of the population in to urban population (backed up by the provided source) and municipal population (not backed up by the sourc) is reverted.
- the rebuilding of template from a standard listed form into a table, is unnecessary and makes the template far larger then requiered.
The table is simply incorrect and is not backed up by the source. I labored to tidy the table according to 2002 census but the same old mess is returned. If you doubt that I inserted something wrong, could you check the population of the municipalities in the source itself: http://www.stat.gov.mk/pdf/kniga_13.pdf ; if you can't translate Macedonian, see the same populations according to 2002 census results here: Municipalities of the Republic of Macedonia, and the urban population of the cities according to 2002 census results here: List of cities in the Republic of Macedonia. If the template is far larger then required we can reduce it to 15 or 10 cities? I hope I was clear about from where the population numbers in mine table come from, so if you return the old population numbers again please show from where they come from!
- No, the layout you have put is just plain wrong and much to big. Place adhere to the standard layout. Secondly, 6 images is plain overkill. And still I can't find the figures for the municipalities in the source. Besides that, why should you add them? We are talking in this template about the cities, not the municipalities. As far as I know the figures of the cities themselves are correct, so if you just mention them, there is no problem. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- I actually like the IP's layout better, but some of those figures are off. The best source to use is this one, which includes both municipal and city populations. I don't think the 6 images were an overkill, but I wouldn't have gone with those particular images. In the current layout, stating in which municipality each city is located is redundant since every city is located in an eponymous municipality. The 'Region' category is better. So, I prefer the IP's version with a correction of figures and changing some of the images. --Local hero talk 23:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- As an outsider, I'd say the smaller version is much better. I don't see what purpose such a huge template could serve. Plus, the municipal data is hardly needed. When used, templates should be as brief and useful as possible. Too much data destroys the whole idea of it. If you are listing cities by their metro population, why do you need the municipal population, too? Since it would best serve as part of the actual article. --Laveol T 23:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- As to pictures, I do concur with LocalHero. The current pictures for Kumanovo and Prilep are much much better looking than those the IP had inserted. --Laveol T 23:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Looking through Category:Largest cities of Europe templates, I see that most follow the same format. Denmark's, however, follows the format the IP has tried to create here but with 8 images. The Czech Republic's or Serbia's is what I'd like this one to look like. With just 4 images, in my browser at least, there are 4 big gaps at each corner. This problem is eliminated with 6 images. The current version does not seem smaller to me and I find the other one easier to read. The municipality populations here serve in place of metro populations since there are no, as far as I know, defined metropolitan regions in the country. Many of the other European templates include metro populations. Perhaps we could consider Iceland's or the Netherlands's version since the country doesn't have very many big cities. --Local hero talk 00:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- I changed 3 of the 4 current images. I changed Skopje's because Macedonia Square looks nothing like that anymore. I changed Bitola's because, while it is one of the best I've seen of the city, it's overused, even outside Wikipedia. Prilep's was changed because I'd prefer the images to not be the same as the infobox images of the cities' articles. Kumanovo's was not changed because there is no other decent image of the city on commons. --Local hero talk 01:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)