Template:Infobox Italian comune is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use ((edit template-protected)) to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox Italian comune template. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
This template was considered for deletion on 2018 January 12. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
TerraCyprus has proposed that this template be renamed to Template:Infobox Italy comune. I'm seeking feedback: I don't see a need for a full-blown RM, so if no-one objects to the move in a week, I'll go ahead with it. – Uanfala (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please implement the above WP:RM, the week mentioned above has passed. TerraCyprus (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh how time fliesI even did let pass some extra time for you to be able to do what you promissed to do without being reminded.
But now that I look again, I'm starting to have doubts.what does that entail? My WP:RM was made on the 26th, you removed it, violating process, on 27th 18:13 [1]. The same day 18:11 you posted here, raised no objections, promissed "
if no-one objects to the move in a week, I'll go ahead with it". No-one objected, but you didn't
go ahead with it. An edit-template-protected-request was made on 5th Nov. Some hours later you write
I'm starting to have doubts. Doubts in what? Did the
startingfinish and if so, what is the result?
the consistency in use of noun vs. adjective is there to a large extent because of a series of movesthere is no consistency, but I am working on implementing consistency in the naming of these wrappers for ((Infobox settlement)). Referring to a discussion on a user talk about technically implementing a move of a template to ((Infobox Switzerland municipality)), taking place there because the admin failed to perform it correctly, you write
about the related move of the Swiss template, that there were some objections to the new name patternbut you don't quote are diff-link any single objection regarding change from adjectival to noun form, and only that can be relevant in the request to move ((Infobox Italian comune)) to ((Infobox Italy comune)). @ProcrastinatingReader: as you have experience with wrappers for ((Infobox settlement)) and are a template-editor, could you implement the WP:RM or otherwise help in the process of fixing this Infobox Italian comune naming issue? TerraCyprus (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
If you object to a proposal listed in the uncontroversial technical requests section, please move the request to the Contested technical requests section, append a note on the request elaborating on why, and sign with ~~~~, this hasn't been done. But the talk here was started, raising the bar for the move a bit. Still no-one objected. Above the objections come down to "you moved some" and "some issue with Swiss template". WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS has been mentioned. Still no objections against noun, not even speaking of how to make the naming consistent without a noun, (New Zealandian, Cape Verdian?) and how to fix the ambiguity when using adjectival form for German, French, Greek, Italian (ethnically or linguistically Italian comune outside Italy, while the infobox is about any comune in Italy irrespective of ethnicity and language). Uanfala suggests to use WP:RM/CM, which says: "A move is potentially controversial if either of the following applies:
I also wonder why it should be called Infobox Switzerland municipality instead of the grammatical correct version Infobox Swiss municipality?, which was made immediately after the long passage that you've just quoted. TerraCyprus, the existence of this whole thread here shows the move is not going to be uncontroversial. Asserting that something is uncontroversial does not make it uncontroversial. – Uanfala (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Adding that the potential for misunderstanding you mentioned above is entirely theoretical – a comune is an administrative unit of Italy, and Italy alone. I don't think that users of this template could suddenly succumb to the illusion that Italians in the US are also organised along the same lines, and start putting that template into articles about counties in New Jersey. – Uanfala (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
There's clearly too much discussion above to process this as an uncontroversial move request. Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit template-protected))
template. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Rename to Infobox Italy comune?with no. ProcrastinatingReader even mentioned WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. The request was on WP:RM/TR from which it was out of process deleted by one user who then didn't even bother to mention the reasoning made in the WP:RM request here. Their self-made enacted 7-day period passed and no-one opposed, like no-one opposed on WP:RM/TR. The Switzerland example is nonsense as explained, since for consistency adjectival form doesn't work. Precedence using noun for many years exists or existed, cf. ((Infobox Cape Verde settlement))/((Infobox Cape Verde place)), ((Infobox Israel village)), ((Infobox Israel municipality)), ((Infobox New Zealand suburb)). No-one opposing enacting consistency and removal of ambiguity. The false statement
a comune is an administrative unit of Italy, and Italy aloneis of no help either, and wouldn't be so, even if it would be correct. ZH8000 didn't make it. ZH8000 once referred to
... grammatical correct version ...a statement that doesn't reflect reality in the English Wikipedia where thousands of templates that refer to a country use the noun, two more examples: Template:Switzerland-river-stub, Template:Italy-river-stub. A reference to a country is predominantly stated by using a noun in the template and category name space. TerraCyprus (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
ZH8000['s ...] statement doesn't reflect reality in the English Wikipediadoes not change the fact that ZH8000 opposes this rename. By my reading of the discussion, Uanfala opposes renaming this template as well. You appear to be attempting to make this move uncontroversial by declaring every opposing argument invalid. That's not how Wikipedia works. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
does not change the fact that ZH8000 opposes this renameno he didn't, he referred to Switzerland municipality and not to Italian comune, and he didn't oppose but raised a question. If Uanfala opposes they would have had enough opportunity to say so and state reasons.
You appear to be attempting to make this move uncontroversial by declaring every opposing argument invalid.- there are no statements opposing the proposed rename.
That's not how Wikipedia works.- and what is your view of how Wikipedia works? Violationg WP:RM/TR process, violating self-made discussion deadline, violating edit-template-request process [by not enacting uncontroversial edit]? TerraCyprus (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Italian comune → Template:Infobox Italy comune – Procedural nomination on behalf of TerraCyprus, as a follow up to the thread above. – Uanfala (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck███ 11:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can anyone please change [[Area codes in Italy|Dialing code]] to [[List of dialling codes in Italy|Dialing code]]? I have done it in the sandbox. 90.235.39.58 (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
The four provinces in the region of Friuli Venezia Giulia were abolished over 2017 (Province of Pordenone, Province of Gorizia and Province of Trieste) and 2018 (Province of Udine). The Infobox Italian comune insists on having a |province= or |metropolitan_city= in order to show a map in the infobox, rather than showing "Lua error in Module:Location_map at line 522: Unable to find the specified location map definition: "Module:Location map/data/Italy Friuli Venezia Giulia" does not exist." Update to this infobox is needed. I would if I could. Help! Jmg38 (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following fields all contain data linked from Wikidata, including references:
It is my understanding from reading the source that this data should not display if the parameter is already filled, however this does not seem to happen in the cases of "area_footnotes" and "population_footnotes". The references from both of these still appear in the reference list even when other references have been supplied as is the case, for example, at Baselice. Please could you fix this so that unnecessary references are not displayed.
Thank you! Vesuvio14 (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The WD calls have been reintroduced to the sandbox, and the Baselice ibox has been included as a test case. The problems described above, while they do not seem to be visible in the test case (which is curious), they can be duplicated by previewing the sandbox on the Baselice page. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 10:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
|population_total=
, |population_as_of=
and |area_total_km2=
params have been reinstated, because they appear to be working correctly. I'm unable to determine why the footnote params are malfunctioning. An anomaly in the ((if empty)) module perhaps? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 01:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)The parameter short_description
was removed upstream (in ((Infobox settlement)), see here and I believe here), but this template still uses it. --ZandDev (msg) 01:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)