Template talk:Infobox Switzerland municipality/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

RfC: Should the template use Infobox Settlement?

Should the template be updated to use Infobox settlement, as shown in these test cases? eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• No objection. The old template has a better placement of the coat of arms, but I suppose havi g fewer templates is better.  Sandstein  05:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Except that there won't actually be fewer templates. A wrapper is still a template so you'll still have two, three if you don't merge {{Infobox Swiss town former}} with this one (see discussion above). --AussieLegend (✉) 06:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
    • And it's actually at least 3 right now, in addition to the {{Infobox Swiss town former}}. The wrapper calls another template to find the municipal map in addition to Infobox Settlement. The current template is about 15K in size. The proposed wrapper is only 5K in size, but it calls another 3K template and the 42K Infobox Settlement template. I say the current template isn't broken, why replace it with 3 or 4 larger templates?Tobyc75 (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, per my comments above, and at the TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's bigger, requires 3 templates to do the job of one, is less flexible and seems to be an attempt to make changes just for the sake of changes.Tobyc75 (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Tobyc75, you're one of the most active users of the Swiss WP. Do you feel that using the IS wrapper template would cause issues to the project, and if so, how?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • In what way does it "require 3 templates"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • My issues with this proposed change are these: It's larger and more complex (3-4 templates vs 1), it apparently requires 2 templates (Infobox Swiss town & Infobox Swiss town former) where currently only 1 is needed (with the municipality type = former), changes to IS may cause unexpected behavior with the wrapper while having everything in one place makes troubleshooting easier, I find it perfectly reasonable for unique country level templates to exist and finally I see this proposed change as a solution in search of a problem. Tobyc75 (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Toby has explained that immediately above.[1] {{Infobox Swiss town/sandbox2}} calls both {{Infobox Swiss town/Mapfinder}} and {{Infobox settlement}} to do what {{Infobox Swiss town}} does in one page. And, of course, there's also {{Infobox Swiss town former}}. This is highly inefficient. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Separating the map finder code makes sense since such a large portion of the template is dedicated to that. How does it increase inefficiency?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
        • How does splitting the functionality of one template across four increase efficiency? I don't believe it in any way makes sense to do that. It doesn't matter how much of the template is used for map functions; space is not an issue. If it was, Infobox settlement would be split across several templates because it's massive by comparison to this one. It's far more efficient to have all of the template code in one place, so maintainers don't have to look in multiple places to maintain a "single" template. Splitting it just makes maintenance more complex. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
          • When I was looking at the IS wrapper code it took me a while to actually find where the call to the map function. I knew it was there because I could see it in the final product, but it wasn't obvious where it was. If the code was all in one spot it would have been easier to find and to maintain.Tobyc75 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
            • If this is a deciding issue, I can support merging it back, even if it's a step backward IMO.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
            • One advantage of using the mapfinder template, is that when a map is missing it doesn't 'tease' the reader by claiming to have a link to the map only to display an error message saying "Sorry no file found, please edit the map section of the infobox with the correct map image file name". On the newer version, it simply omits the collapsible drawer altogether.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
              • The map finder template is just a minor part of my objection. All it does it make the wrapper seem smaller. The claim that this new wrapper is smaller and more efficient is very misleading when it takes 4 templates (including the much larger IS template) to replace a single template.Tobyc75 (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
              • The discussion seems to have stalled (again). At the risk of sounding obsessive, wouldn't it be better to discuss it at TfD? We only got one additional opinion in 2+ weeks, clearly RfC is not checked by many people.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
                • And what would that achieve, a mere 3 months since the last one was closed? I'm also a bit skeptical of the notion that using the threat of deletion as a vector for discussion will really improve the quality of the consensus. MLauba ^(Talk) 23:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
                  • At TfD the discussion might actually be noticed by someone, that's what it would achieve. Also nobody ever said anything about deletion so try to stay calm and assume good faith, accusing me of 'using threats' won't improve the discussion either.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
                    • TfD is for deletion, not changes to the template. The last TfD ended recently and was closed with no consensus and a statement to discuss the changes here. I'm sorry if you're not getting the support that you wanted on the talk page, but trying to relist it again seems like a bit of forum shopping.Tobyc75 (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
                    • I'm perfectly calm, thank you very much. I also haven't uttered any accusations here, but will note that personalizing this is unlikely to yield you the result you look for. Do you intend to address Tobyc75's objections and convince others of your point of view, or do you prefer argue at strawmen? MLauba ^(Talk) 00:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

[unindent] @Tobyc75: as much as I respect your work for the Swiss WP, I just don't see how we are supposed to discuss this change when you are spurning any compromise I propose as long as it involves IS. Merging back the sub-template would not be enough, but what would be? Can you imagine any wrapper version that you would accept?

@MLauba: You don't seem to be calm at all, and that is a non-negotiable precondition for discussing anything. The 'D' in TfD stands for discussion, not deletion, and if you ignored that it was up to you to make sure what you were writing was right. Throwing around false accusation never helps for the quality of a debate.-eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Again, your mind-reading abilities are off. Quit making this about editors, this is becoming highly disruptive. MLauba ^(Talk) 21:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

My fundamental issue with this proposed change is that it requires multiple templates and wrappers rather than just one. It seems to be part of a push to force every local template into IS without regard for any local conditions and organization. This proposed change increases the total size and complexity without any noticeable performance improvement. Since it seems that your compromise addresses one minor issue that I can live with or not and ignores the substance of my opposition, I'm not sure how to respond to your question.Tobyc75 (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If you must continue this squabble take it to my talk page, not here.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm eagerly waiting for you to drop it and would have preferred you didn't start it in the first place. So to spell it out more clearly for you: You are proposing to modify a template in a manner that, although (aside from load times on slow connections) it doesn't really impact the reader, may impact the editors using the template. Several of those, including some of the most active editors in the area of Swiss settlements, have voiced several objections, which you haven't addressed to their satisfaction. You then propose to bring it to a discussion forum whose primary purpose is to merge or delete templates (for the second time in three months). So let me ask again, what do you expect to gain from such a nomination that you aren't getting from the primary users of the template? MLauba ^(Talk) 23:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

If you read Tobyc75's comments you will see that his main opposition is the size and complexity involved. You're proposing replacing a single template with at least three, a wrapper, another template and Infobox settlement. This really is an inefficient way to do things when the existing, much smaller template does it all in one. I don't see any indication that MLauba isn't calm. In fact, from what I read it's a rather silly claim to make. You're correct, the "D" in "TfD" does stand for discussion but the first sentence of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion says "On this page, deletion or merging of templates (except as noted below) is discussed." So yes, "D" does stand for discussion but WP:TFD is for discussion about deletion or merging of templates. Since this is a discussion about converting the template, TfD is not the place to be. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

As I proposed before, I could agree, reluctantly, to merge back the subtemplate. But any solution that involves a wrapper template will involve at least two templates, by definition. I don't see how this has any impact on maintenance or efficiency, no matter how broadly defined, but that's not important; what is important is whether you and Toby are open to any solution that involves IS. I am still keen on changing this template, but would it not be better to be quite frank? If no compromise is possible, you have only to say so.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose It's longer, not as neatly formated, is bigger, and requires too many templates to do the job of one. Technical 13 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding Former municipality line

I've added a line to the template which will add the line Former municipality of Switzerland to any article that has the municipality type set to former. This will make the current legal status of the municipality clearer. The complete text is here Template:Infobox Swiss town/sandbox and the test cases are here Template:Infobox Swiss town/testcases. Can some admin please copy the text from the sandbox over to the current template? Tobyc75 (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose this is a pointless addition to an already bloated template, former municipalities are already handled by the Template:Infobox Swiss town former.--Nero the second (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

a bloated, unnecessary template you created recently. There is no reason to have 2 templates, both requiring upkeep, when one will work fine. All my arguments are laid out on your talk page, so I won't recreate them here.Tobyc75 (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Bloated? Are you kidding me? The new template is 2,566 bytes and the old one is 15,540 bytes, I will let a neutral observer decide which one is bloated.--Nero the second (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The new template is a wrapper for a 42,000+ bytes template. So 2,566+42,000 is much, much more than 15,540!Tobyc75 (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This could better be resolved by making this template a wrapper for {{infobox settlement}}, as suggested above, Note that {{Infobox Swiss town former}} is already such a wrapper; and the two could also be merged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the current arrangement makes more sense, because for former municipalities there is no need to fetch new maps or population figures for example. We should rediscuss both templates together and let the community decide.--Nero the second (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Support - We don't really need an extra infobox for former municipalities since they can be described by only a few additional parameters. Having one single infobox also ensures consistency of style between municipalities and former municipalities, which is important. mgeo talk 08:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! Two templates will drift apart and require more than twice as much maintenance. This modification will make the infobox look the same regardless of whether it is a former or current municipality.Tobyc75 (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

If the new template is implemented, I see no reason to keep this semi-fork template, since they are largely equivalent..--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no need for the other template now, since a few lines of code added to the existing template will achieve the same result. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I would not agree to using the version in the sandbox1 as a replacement. It's clearly an imitation of IS, better to use the original.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

But it's OK to create a template that is 99% redundant to another? --AussieLegend (✉) 03:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It's clear that there is little support for converting this to a wrapper for infobox settlement so this issue needs to be revisited. Should we make the changes to this template as per the original request? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it? I see two "opposes". Have I missed some? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes you have. Tobyc75 and Technical 13 have stated clear opposes. Mlauba hasn't stated a clear oppose but his comments don't give it any support. You can read my comments as lack of support too. The discussion has pretty much stalled with no further comments so there's no reason why we shouldn't approach this discussion again. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The whole discussion about converting it into a wrapper ran out of steam about 2 months ago. The discussion on adding the line Former municipality of Switzerland to the template had only 1 oppose over it being redundant to a recently created and redundant template. With no further discussion on either of the wrapper discussions in the last couple of months, I'd like to see my proposed changes implemented. Tobyc75 (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 December 2013

Request that the current version of the template be replaced with this version from the sandbox. This request was initially made above but was opposed with a rationale that the template be converted to be a wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}. That proposal has received little support and there has been no further opposition to the proposed changes in over 3 months so there seems no reason why the originally proposed changes cannot be implemented at this time. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. I let this sit all day to see if another qualified individual supported the change, and it's still sitting here. So, my take on this request is that although there is little support for making it a wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}}, I also don't see any consensus or support to bloat this template out further than it already is. Please develop a consensus for this change and thoroughly test it in the sandbox and set |ans=no and we can make it happen. Technical 13 (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I think there may be a misunderstanding. From what I can tell, the sandboxed template doesn't use the settlement wrapper, but carries through the merger of the "former municipality" switch that actually had consensus here, before getting stalled by the proposed wrapper action. I support AussieLegend's proposal. MLauba ^(Talk) 02:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    • The opposition to "bloating" came from a single editor who, coincidentally, had created {{Infobox Swiss town former}} as a wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}} and then converted articles already using this template to use {{Infobox Swiss town former}}. The "bloat" he claimed is a mere 288 bytes, 1.8% of the current size. As discussed above, the extra complexity of Infobox Swiss town former results in effectively bloating template usage by 288%. The only other opposition had nothing to do with bloating, it was merely support for converting the template to use {{Infobox settlement}}. Based on the discussions to date, I don't see a reason for rejecting the proposed changes based on apparent bloating. That said, I can understand Technical 13's to implement the changes based on recent events at {{Infobox television}} where an apparently simple change wasn't as simple. That was not Technical 13's fault by any means, it was caused by somebody using the template in a way that it had not been designed for. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• That's not entirely true, I also opposed adding extras to an already bloated template, and I still do. That said, if others think it is worth it, then I'm willing to add it. Technical 13 (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at your contribution to this page prior to this discussion your argument was an opposition to using Infobox settlement because "It's longer, not as neatly formated, is bigger, and requires too many templates to do the job of one".[2] Opposing a 288 byte increase to this template is effectively the opposite of what you said in the RfC because you're advocating the use of multiple templates totalling far too many kb whereas the addition to this template will reduce the number of kb currently being used for Swiss towns significantly as well as reducing the number of templates from many, to one. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• Concerning testing, I've checked out about 50 articles and found no problems. I understand Tobyc75 has tested it before I did and there are 16 testcases on the testcases page. Regarding consensus, MadGeographer has stated clear support for the changes,[3] and obviously Tobyc75, who authored the changes, supports them, although he clarified his position in October when this was last discussed.[4] Clearly a majority of editors support the changes and, while we don't count votes to form a consensus, there seems clear support for the changes based on the arguments presented. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Support. The discussion above revolved around the creation of {{Infobox Swiss town former}} which while looking similar was totally different under the hood. It was a wrapper for {{Infobox settlement}} which was much, much larger and there was no consensus for creating the wrapper. The current template already included a line for former municipalities and so the former template was redundant. However, I like the way that the Former municipality of Switzerland line looked and thought it made it easier to see the current status of the municipality. So I added a couple of lines to create the label if the municipality type was set to former. I also just added a couple of lines to check for 2014 maps. I've checked the template with the test cases and everything looked good.Tobyc75 (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• As there has been no further discussion in the past four days I'm reactivating this request. It's been four months since the request was initially made and there was only ever 1 actual oppose so it's time to get this done. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• That might be true that no further discussion has occurred in four days, however, I still don't see a consensus formed that says that this should be done. I see one official support, and I personally still oppose bloating the template. I'll leave the ETP open for a few hours to see if another TE or Admin disagrees with me, but there is no reason to leave it on the ETP table beyond that if there is no consensus formed yet. Perhaps a note on a noticeboard to get some more input here is in order? Technical 13 (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• 300 bytes more isn't bloat. The protection is here to avoid breaking 2000+ articles when someone screws up, not to stall any evolution to the template that would be handled under standard WP:BRD absent the protection. In fact, the only reason I didn't carry out the request directly was because I had participated in the other discussion above (which you did too for this matter). I disagree with postponing this further, and I don't see how advertising this to attract editors who don't use the template at all will give a better consensus. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• "I see one official support" - I wear glasses and I can see four. As I've already pointed out, with diffs:[5]

1. MadGeographer has stated clear support for the changes. In fact he was the first person to provide an official support back in August when these changes were first proposed, before the discussion was dragged off course by the RfC.
2. Tobyc75, as the author and original proposer, obviously supports the changes. He restated his support in October and stated clearly his support a few days ago.[6]. He even started his post with Support.
3. MLauba also made his support clear, stating " I support AussieLegend's proposal".[7]

So, there are 3 very clearly stated official supports for the changes. Then, there is this nomination, which I began with "Request that the current version of the template be replaced with this version from the sandbox." Quite obviously, even though I haven't actually said Support, I support implementation of the proposed changes. So there are actually four clear, official supports. and no, 288 bytes is NOT bloating the template, as I've previously explained. These changes will deprecate the recently created {{Infobox Swiss town former}}, a 2,566 byte wrapper for the longer, not as neatly formated [sic], bigger, and requiring too many templates to do the job of one "Infobox settlement" that you opposed converting this template to, that does one thing that this template doesn't currently do. Except, of course, that it does it in a lot more space than the changes to this template requires.

@MLauba - Regarding your statement "I don't see how advertising this to attract editors who don't use the template at all will give a better consensus", I don't use this infobox. I'm here because of my interest in templates (I've made over 2,300 edits to at least 284 templates in template space, I've created several and substantially or completely rewritten a few others) so I think I qualify as an outside editor regarding this infobox and I can't see why these edits shouldn't be implemented after four months. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: My apologies, that one didn't come across as I intended. I'm mostly concerned that we get another 4 months of stalling if people interested mostly in merging templates resurrect their prior proposal. Not a smart point to make on my part though. MLauba ^(Talk) 21:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologise, I was just pointing out that there has been an editor who doesn't use this template here for months. I agree there's no point stalling further. It's a trivial change that should have been incorporated 3 months ago. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Even though it should be blindingly obvious from my contributions I'm throwing in an official support for those who are counting. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
• Following a request on my talk page, the long inactivity on this request, and the unopposed support by all editors who bothered to comment, the change has been implemented. Thanks to Frietjes for immediately catching an issue and fixing it. If anything else pops up, just holler. MLauba ^(Talk) 18:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• For the record, this was hardly "Unopposed support". Technical 13 (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Where do you see any in this section? MLauba ^(Talk) 13:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

2014 Maps update

I've updated the sandbox version to include looking for 2014 municipal maps. The only change is to add 2 lines that check for the newest maps for any district that underwent a change on 1 January 2014. I need to have the current version replaced with this version sandbox. The change was tested on the testcases and it worked correctly for all the test cases. Thanks Tobyc75 (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. LittleMountain5 06:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Metropolitan area

Wouldn't it be very relevant to include a field that shows which metropolitan area the town is part of? Keizers (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Where would you put it? What would it say? Are you able to put together a version in the sandbox?Tobyc75 (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I have never (successfully) edited a template before, it seems quite complex to add a field...Keizers (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Some modifications in Swiss population data templates

Hello together, I would like to reduce time and source parameters in the Swiss population data templates to just one for each (at the moment there are six parameter for time an two parameters for the source): These modification would make update of these templates here as well in other languages considerably less time consuming, but requires some adaptations in the template Infobox Swiss town as well as in the template Swiss populations date and related templates. So far I made these modifications in sandbox templates (see my latest edits), they work without causing obvious errors and without changing their functionality. The sandbox templates I modified are: [8], [9], [10], [11] and [12]. --Septembermorgen (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like we'll need to make some changes to the population data templates. Here's a couple of testcases that I created which indicate that there are some problems. References. It's looking for SOURCE, not QUELLE, but that should be easy to change. For the Year and Year-Month it looks like it's looking for the TIMESTAMP in the top-most section, under the {{#switch: {{{2|}}} <!-- Stand und Quelle sind unabhängig vom Gemeindeschlüssel --> line. When I added it to that section on the Basel-Stadt Population data, then I started getting good dates for the Basel-Stadt municipality. So, we need to make some changes to the Y, YM and Date templates or some changes to the Population Data templates, but either way it should work. Since these templates just feed directly into Template Infobox Swiss town, if they work correctly in the Y, YM, etc testcases, then it shouldn't cause any problems in the main template.Tobyc75 (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The modification SOURCE instead of QUELLE is just a minor thing, but I think "source" is easier to understand in most other wikis. Since the source is included witin ref name-tags I removed these refname-brackets and introduced a parameter for the refname were the source is included [13] and [14]. --Septembermorgen (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Tobyc75, the Swisse federal statistics office released the 2013 population numbers just a few weeks ago. Maybe that's an opportunity to adapt the templates as proposed. Regards --Septembermorgen (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

New proposal to convert to infobox settlement/create a wrapper

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I see absolutely no reason why Switzerland needs it's own infobox and the current template looks dated, poorly organized and inferior in scope to infobox settlement. Consistency is the way to go. It is annoying to visit Swiss towns and have to scroll down to even see the pin map let alone district map.

I suggest creating a wrapper for infobox settlement:

• Support ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• support, and checking the archives, there is already a wrapper version which could be used as a starting point. Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• comment Have any of the objections of last year been addressed (the most important was bloat if memory serves)? MLauba ^(Talk) 17:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Unnecessary parameters can be removed. That's the good thing about a wrapper template is that you can use the ones which apply from infobox settlement. I believe infobox settlement now has a shrinkable map option too. What would be bloated? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The "bloat" argument is that template:infobox settlement is large, and with a wrapper even more data would be needed for a page view. The solution is to reduce the size of template:infobox settlement. This infobox is poorly laid out and jarring for those who expect the standard layout. Settlements lend themselves to a more formal database structure that would make it easier, for example, to automatically update and roll up area and population data. An API to give access to settlement data from a website like www.geonames.org would also be useful. None of this is practical if settlements in Switzerland use a non-standard template. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Any move towards a simpler, more standardized approach is to be welcomed.--Ipigott (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Same arguments as the last two times this was brought up. Infobox Settlement is much larger than the current template, and the wrapper just makes it larger. None of the support comments above address the size or other issues which were brought up last year, except for a hand-waving comment that somehow Infobox Settlement will be made smaller. The support comments all seem to add up to "I don't like it".Tobyc75 (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • My "support" comment isn't based on an arbitrary personal preference, but on the palpable benefits to readers and parsers of greater standardisation, and to fellow editors on reducing the maintenance overhead. You, however, make no case for why Swiss subjects need a different infobox to those in most other countries. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
    • This is indeed more informative than your unqualified support above. Since we got tangible specifics: On reader benefits: Is there any hard evidence that readers have an issue with the slightly different aspect of the infobox? On parsing, what parameters of the current infobox cause parsing errors against the common standards for municipalities? And on maintenance overhead, surely we can find, again, any evidence that there has been an issue with this? Thanks for clarifying. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
      • As I said, you make no case for why Swiss subjects need a different infobox to those in most other countries. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
        • This is a red herring. There is no site-wide consensus that mandates using the same infobox, and maintaining the status quo requires no case. On the other hand, the only case for switching seems merely to be "for the sake of it". MLauba ^(Talk) 09:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Noted that, despite being challenged, you still make no case for why Swiss subjects need a different infobox to those in most other countries. The case for removing redundant infoboxes has been made well, in this and previous discussions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
            • I'm not sure why I need to justify keeping the status quo. Rather anyone who wants to change it will need to demonstrate that the changes will be an improvement, which I think was settled the last two times this came up. The current infobox is maintained, is smaller than Infobox Settlement, it doesn't require a custom wrapper and is as usable as the proposed new version. Even if this change is pushed through, it'll still have a custom wrapper which will still make it at least somewhat custom, negating the argument that the change is for consistency.Tobyc75 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

After a week, we have seven "support" and only a lone "oppose". It's time to close this and enact the changes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not one of these supports addresses any of the objections that we had last year when you tried this same thing or address MLauba's questions this time. The arguments reduce down to "I don't like it" or "I think a wrapper is better, because it is". As for the 7 to 1 statement, you know it's not a democracy.Tobyc75 (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Due to the unqualified support votes, the inability to back up any of the so called claims about issues this change would address, and the lack of willingness to address the core of the issues, this will make my vote an oppose. The other beef I have with every single support is that I see no evidence whatsoever that they edit in the area of Swiss towns at all. As a consequence, this amounts to a bunch of well-meaning people coming to a craftsman (In this case mainly Tobyc75 who does the brunt work of maintaining the template, and is also the most prolific editor in the whole field), telling him that they'll take away the tools he has used so far and replace it with something heavier, unwieldier, because other people in other areas use theirs. I'm particularly concerned by the arrogance on display by some of the supporters. No way. MLauba ^(Talk) 18:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oh, and if this were decided on the strength of numbers, I see 5 (unqualified or unsubstantiated) supports, not 7. Where are the other two? MLauba ^(Talk) 18:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• I miscounted. My point stands. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • P.S. With the two additional suports, below, we're back to seven "support". Time to act. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I not only see seven now but nine supports. I think it's clear that there is consensus to act.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support, as per potw: "no case for why Swiss subjects need a different infobox to those in most other countries". Quite. - SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support per all the above. Cassianto^talk 19:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support per all the above. --Rosiestep (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support per same as all the above.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maps update for 2015

I've updated the sandbox version to include looking for 2015 municipal maps. The only change is to add 2 lines that check for the newest maps for any district that underwent a change on 1 January 2015. I need to have the current version replaced with this version sandbox. The change was tested on the testcases and it worked correctly for all the test cases. Thanks Tobyc75 (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Sant'Abbondio

Dr. Blofeld has informed me that there is an issue with the "automatic local map" in Sant'Abbondio. the problem is as follows,

1. Template:SFOS2Municipality has the name of the former municipality as "Sant'Abbondio"
2. the map file is File:Karte Gemeinde Sant' Abbondio 2009.png (notice the space after the apostrophe)

so, since there is no File:Karte Gemeinde Sant'Abbondio 2009.png, no map is found. to resolve this, we could change Template:SFOS2Municipality to return "Sant' Abbondio" (with a space) but would this screw up anything else? Frietjes (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

nevermind, it looks like I can just override with a |municipality_name= or |map=, will do that instead. I moved that chunk of code to a subtemplate and added some tracking so we can find ones that have map errors, or are not using the most up-to-date maps. Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

now fixed here. Frietjes (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request-Add Canton Maps

Please replace the template with the version found at Template:Infobox Swiss town/sandbox2. The sandbox2 version changes the location map from just showing Switzerland to showing 2 location maps, either the country or the canton or both. It uses the location = Switzerland#Canton of xxxx. Tobyc75 (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Tobyc75, you may notice that the template request box above contains a bunch of tools, all geared to using sandbox, not sandbox2. You request that sandbox2 is made live, but the testcases page, even though nested under sandbox2, tests sandbox. For these reasons, Not done for now:. Cabayi (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

CabayiActually, the test cases to Sandbox2 all reference Sandbox2 not Sandbox. All the test cases start with: {{Infobox Swiss town/sandbox2 .Tobyc75 (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Done @Cabayi: This was merely a matter of the headings/labels on the testcases page, not the actual examples transcluded on it. — Train2104 (t • c) 05:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Train2104 So I saw after Tobyc75's comment. It's that type of discrepancy that shreds confidence in the testing. And a lack of response to the remainder of my comment which led me to let it sit. Also, it wasn't just a cut & paste replacement as requested.

Anybody object to getting rid of sandbox2 to ensure the proper sandbox is used in future? Cabayi (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I've requested deletion of sandbox2 G6 as redundant to sandbox & not working with TE tools & templates. Cabayi (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Including a wrong link to a coat of arms of ... page

Hi, the template sometimes includes a wrong link to a coat of arms of ... page. It will include such a link automatically if it exists (through the #ifexist:Coat of arms of {{{subject_name}}} fragment, but there is no guarantee that that is actually the correct page. On Saint-Barthélemy, Switzerland, subject_name is set to Saint-Barthélemy, and the template automatically includes a link to Coat of arms of Saint-Barthélemy (another Saint-Barthélemy unfortunately). Should I change subject_name on the target page to Saint-Barthélemy, Switzerland, or should this template be changed to allow the configuration of the correct value (e.g. link_coa = Coat of arms of Saint-Barthélemy, Switzerland)?

Thanks in advance for your response! Den Hieperboree (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2018 (UTC).

Edit request - timezone

| timezone_link           = Time in Switzerland
| timezone1               = Central European Time
| utc_offset1             = UTC+01:00
| timezone1_DST           = Central European Summer Time
| utc_offset1_DST         = UTC+02:00

TerraCyprus (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done with modifications. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, thank you for modifying away my mistakes! TerraCyprus (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit request - Settlement type

No type shown for most of the items.

| settlement_type = {{#ifeq:{{{municipality_type|}}} | former | [[List of former municipalities of Switzerland|Former municipality]] of [[Switzerland]] }}

please change to

| settlement_type = {{#ifeq:{{{municipality_type|}}} | former | [[List of former municipalities of Switzerland|Former municipality]] of [[Switzerland]] }}{{#ifeq:{{{municipality_type|}}} | municipality | [[municipalities of Switzerland|municipality]] of [[Switzerland]] }}

TerraCyprus (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

What about city, or municipality and city? I think this might benefit from a switch statement that accounts for acceptable values that are used in actual articles. Also the note in the documentation starting with "Used to add the categories..." does not appear to be correct. Was that functionality removed? If so, was the removal intentional? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Jonesey95, AFAICS |municipality_type= does not allow for anything else than "municipality" and "former", because "municipality" is the type and "former municipality" some fake type denoting that the municipality was abolished. TerraCyprus (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The documentation footnote #1, while apparently wrong about categorization, makes it clear that "former" and "everything else" are the two expected options. Based on that logic, I suggest the following (not yet tested):

| settlement_type = {{#ifeq:{{{municipality_type|}}} | former | [[List of former municipalities of Switzerland|Former municipality]] of [[Switzerland]] | [[Municipalities of Switzerland|Municipality]] of [[Switzerland]] }}

Comments? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Didn't see that note before. It says "*1: Used to add the categories Category:Villages in Switzerland, Category:Former municipalities of Switzerland and [[Category:Former municipalities of {{{canton}}}]] if the field contains 'former' or Category:Municipalities of Switzerland and [[Category:Municipalities of {{{canton}}}]] in any other case" - why would "while apparently wrong about categorization" be true? Maybe any former is a village? What are the boxes about for the former municipalities if the article mixes village and former municipality? Population data for the village or for when it last was a municipality? TerraCyprus (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The note is was wrong (edited to add: I have modified note #1 to explain what 'former' actually does) about categorization because this infobox template does not assign any of those categories to articles that transclude it. I am unable to parse your other questions. Let me know if you have a comment on my modification to your proposed code. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Now it says "*1: When the parameter value is 'former', population and website information are not shown." - so in all other cases the box is about the municipalities? A lot of the functionality depends on a correct |municipality_code= and |municipality_type= != "former". Jonesey95, I cannot find a mistake with your code. Maybe in the future the box could be substituted for the former municipalities, then allways type=municipality. TerraCyprus (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the code based on my snippet of code above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Is municipality_name= being handled correctly?

I am unable to follow the confusing history of this template and its wrappers, but it appears that |municipality_name= may have been a valid parameter with some function in the past. It is being marked as an unsupported parameter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Also |website= has a lot of uses; was it valid at some point in the past? – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

And |languages=. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

They were in the template when it was converted to an IS wrapper, in Special:Diff/638774298. _name was moved in Special:Diff/648203653 to a sub-template and fully removed in Special:Diff/871263951. Website is still a valid param. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Population handling

Copied from Template_talk:Infobox_Swiss_town:

This request is done, but the target template needs some work. For example: the population handling w.r.t. Wikidata is totally bust. It is forcing Zürich to show 2018 years when 2020 ones are being explicitly provided on the page on enwiki (see source). |popofyear= is widely used as a year param, but it's not even supported by the template itself it seems? Looks like only the month/year combo param is. Parameter deprecation runs would also be helpful (by bot); looks like a few editors attempted some by hand yesterday. Lots of very old deprecated params here causing confusion it looks like. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader:The use of Wikidata for population and area has been an issue since it was unilaterally changed a couple years ago. The template used to use Template:Swiss populations which pulled population from a local en wiki list which I maintained and updated. In the articles, the population data is from that template, rather than Wikidata. There were a lot of technical issues with pulling wikidata for articles that have a title different than the article name in Wikidata. That, plus the ease of vandalism and the lack of eyes on Wikidata made transitioning the Swiss populations template not make sense. It would be great if we could get the infobox template to agree with the template in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyc75 (talk • contribs)

I've setup Category:Pages using infobox Switzerland municipality with manual population for tracking. This is all the articles where we (a) have a Wikidata population and (b) have a manual population parameter, hence the Wikidata data is overriding and the local data is not being shown(!). On some, like Zürich, Wikidata is outdated. On others, our local articles have 2004 dates or so. People, naturally, probably didn't want to maintain it if it doesn't show up anyway. But this is really something we should fix, one way or another, I think. Forced Wikidata values seems controversial. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

My current thought is doing a bot run to delete parameters with pre-2018 values, or replace with call where a location can be determined. Then, we prioritise the enwiki parameter (usually a call to {{Swiss populations YM}}), making Wikidata into the fallback. The bot run will ensure doing step 2 won't cause articles to show very old population numbers instead. Any better ideas? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Using Module:WikidataIB instead of {{wikidata}} is recommended, and it usually allows local values to override Wikidata values, which is typically what we want. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. That's an improvement, but. what can we do about the old outdated years being used as params currently? Is there a neat way to deal with those without bot run, or overly complex / strange template logic? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

ifexpr should be able to find dates that are older than desired and categorize them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess. Some kind of logic where if the Wikidata has a newer year than the local parameter, we use Wikidata instead. However, it needs to be year-based not date I think, because if locally we have year as "2020", and Wikidata is "12-10-2020", it should still use local. Which complicates things slightly more. I'm not too familiar with Wikidata integrations, is this something you could implement? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Right now it's set to first look for 12-31-2018 in wikidata, then to look for any other wikidata date, then finally to look for the value in the infobox. It never looks at the template {{Swiss populations}} or the year template {{Swiss populations Y}}, which are updated every year when new numbers are published and is used in the article text. By having a date hard coded in the template, we'd have to rewrite that part of the infobox every year. Additionally, since if it doesn't find the 12-31-2018 date (which we'd have to manually change every year) the infobox currently just defaults to the first population data entry it finds in wikidata, regardless of year. For example, this means that if we change the 12-31-2018 to 12-31-2019 in the template and wikidata hasn't been updated then for the capital city of Bern, it defaults to 2013 data. For Zurich it looks like it might default to 1408! Using wikidata for things like population, which change often, has created a number of issues like this.Tobyc75 (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Why not simply update Wikidata and be done? It would also be helpful for other Wikipedias, i.e. the WMF movement as a whole. TerraCyprus (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Script errors related to population handling parameters

@Frietjes: This change is causing script errors on any pages that pass popofyear but not populationof, such as Neunkirch. What's supposed to happen in that case? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Jackmcbarn, the template does not support |popofyear=, but in most cases the year is already in |populationof=, so the check is supposed to disable tracking of |popofyear= when the value is a substring of the value in |populationof=. if there is no |populationof= then the string replacement would act on a blank string, so this would also result in no tracking. Frietjes (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 November 2020 – wording change to avoid awkward "Municipality of Switzerland"

This template currently produces the text Municipality of Switzerland under the subject name in the resulting infobox. That is not how we express such a term in English. It should read Swiss municipality or maybe Municipality in Switzerland. "Municipality of Switzerland" is how you would refer to a municipality named Switzerland. Eric ^talk 18:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. This might be controversial. The article is called "Municipalities of Switzerland", but it seems like more of a formal term. In English, we definitely say "X is a city/town/municipality/county in Y". If the in/of distinction is controversial, it would probably be best to simply write "Municipality", since the country name appears in the first line of data (after the images and maps).

For comparison, see {{Infobox Portugal place}}, {{Infobox French commune}}, and the documentation for Infobox settlement, which suggests using only the place type in this location. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Jonesey. Yes, the plural makes complete sense in the article title. But the singular here jumped out at me as odd; I'm guessing it was formulated by a non-native speaker. And I agree that simply "Municipality" would work as well. Just curious: Why did you prefer the "in" solution to "Swiss municipality"? Eric ^talk 23:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

After doing a bit of poking around and reading the documentation (linked above), I prefer no nationality at all (i.e. just "Municipality"). I'm happy to give others a chance to have their say before changing it, though. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

"municipality" is just an English word and not a type. TerraCyprus (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

20 August 2020 edit request

Greetings and felicitations. Would someone please be so kind as to add a plural option for the postal_code field? I checked both the documentation and the talk page archives and can't find one, nor does making the field plural ("postal_codes") currently work. (Please be so kind as to {{ping}} me when you respond.) —05:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Use |postal_code= as usual. You can see the new code in action at Geneva. Not pinging because you did not sign with your user name. Please fix your signature. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Oops. My signature is manual; thank you! ^_^ — DocWatson42 (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 April 2021

Can you add "imagepath_flag"? Every municipality has a flag alongside with a coat of arm just like the cantons. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC) SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: can you make the change in the template's sandbox first? Elli (talk | contribs) 07:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: I had done it already. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: it seems like there are some other changes too. Would you also like those implemented? Elli (talk | contribs) 07:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes.SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: can you please explain the purpose of those changes? Elli (talk | contribs) 08:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: The purpose of the change is to display the flag of a Swiss municipality. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: I understand that - I'm talking about the change to the {{{population_total}}} and {{{population_as_of}}} parameters. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

...looking, it seems like you didn't make those changes. In which case, I'll implement the changes you requested, as they seem to be non-controversial. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 09:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

21 September 2023 edit request

Add parentheses before and after the listed political party of the mayor,so that the format is displayed as MAYOR (PARTY) instead of MAYOR PARTY. For example: Michele Foletti (Ticino League). HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 20:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. There is already a parenthetical remark after the party name at Lugano. How do you propose reconciling your request with that formatting? – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

popofyear?

Hi, I've noticed that all of the articles that use this template have some stray text up at the top that just reads "popofyear" (ex: the top of Bern), regardless of whether or not the article is using that parameter in the infobox call. It's definitely within this line of code:

{{main other| {{#if:{{{popofyear|}}}|{{#if:{{#invoke:string|replace|{{{populationof}}}|^.*{{{popofyear}}}.*$||plain=false}}|NULL_|}} }}popofyear }}

Could someone please fix this? Thanks! - OpalYosutebito (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That was me trying to fix something. My apologies for the excessive edits today; there was some extremely unusual testing going on in and around the check for unknown parameters, and I had to look through the edits and edit summaries one by one until I figured it out. I think it's all fixed now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It's ok. The stray text is gone now, thanks :) - OpalYosutebito (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)