Template talk:Major French Cities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone know why this template doesn't interfere with images placed alongside it in the text, while template:French commune does? Also, having the map in the commune one might be handy, if done smaller. Stevage 16:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Stevage - good to see you still kickin' : ) This template won't bother anything around it - to its left at least - because it has a "clear:right" in its "style" attribute - this makes sure to only "clear" everything coming between the box's right and the right of its container - in this case the page. Without this 'clear' precision there may be interference with other images or floating objects... like the TOC for example. Since the infobox itself floats to the right it pushes everything that would 'flow' to its right around to its left. Hope this answers your question. THEPROMENADER 17:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 New Proposition 2 New Format 3 Why are there two separate templates for French cities? 4 Complement EU

[edit] New Proposition

How would people feel about removing the Urban Spread section and putting the urban and metro area populations underneath the Population entry? Something like this. This is more in line with what other city infoboxes do for metro area populations. I realize that I have removed the land areas for the urban and metro areas but those details can be put in the main article. Polaron | Talk 18:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Your version is good because it also makes it clear that the agglomeration is much larger than the commune 'city' itself... but I do miss the land areas as they gave an indication of density - and this also between the agglomeration and the commuter belt in a four-way comparison. Personally I find that indicating population only is a bit vague... simply because the definition of the UA and MA differ from country to country, and to some it is one and the same (see this article based on a UN study). By putting both area/population next to each other my idea was to give the straight facts and bypass all international ambiguity.

I found the time today to have a good look around at the other Wiki 'big city' articles and their respective Census organisation sources... and I honestly can't see the reason 'Wikiboxes' present city statistics as they do. Most all Census bureaus publish UA (agglomeration) and MA (commuter area) information, but often as separate statistics... let's take New York City's example again, but this time with its page on the American Census Bureau site - statistics are shown separately for each statistical region. I see absolutely no reason there why one would speak only of one area without the other. In fact, if I may, in looking in through the different Wiki 'big city' articles, I get the impression that there is a sort of 'blowfish' (or a "my *** is bigger than your ***") competition going on, using the biggest 'outer' statistical region possible as an excuse to cite the biggest possible numbers. This just adds silliness to ambiguity if this is true. This round of research brought up more questions than it answered, actually.

Let us not forget also that Infoboxes are a Wiki thing, and that it is hard to copy existing references if they don't have the same. In the existing proposition I sought to overcome ambiguity with fixed, imaginable and comparible measures instead of relying solely on an ambiguous term - I hope you see the logic in this. But by your example, I see that removing the 'urban spread' title wouldn't muddle the picture at all. THEPROMENADER 20:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this discussion but I'll put this here anyway. In the case of the US, the urban area is relatively unknown. When one speaks of "cities" here, one usually means the administrative city limits, and the larger area is the metropolitan area. It is true that the urban area and metropolitan statistical area or MSA (the population density based metropolitan area) are linked since the MSA is just the urban area adjusted to county boundaries plus immediately outlying counties. Also, not all statistics offices publish both MA and UA data so it's not always possible to get reliable figures foo both definitions. In any case, when available, all three - administrative, UA, and MA data - should be indicated in my opinion. Polaron | Talk 14:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I of course agree - it was my initial incomprehension as a layman in face of the MA figures (and the wide-ranging definitions of what an 'MA' is - your example is another case in point) that led me to research the question - and I came to the same conclusion (all three), the reason I'm pushing it now. Info like this should be clear to a wider audience than just number-lovers. We can continue here for this infobox, but personally I would like to see this involved in the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities project - thanks for the tip, btw. THEPROMENADER 15:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Format

I have changed the format of the box just slightly so that it is more like Template:French commune and Template:Infobox Country. Trying to get some sort of uniformity between infoboxes used in French articles. --Bob 01:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks great! Unfortunately the box is too wide for the plan - shall I make a larger one? If you would like to expand to 280px I must upload another - not a problem. THEPROMENADER 08:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tried narrowing it down temporarily, but for the life of me I can't see why it won't go - there's now a 10px gap to the right of the plan. Is it the "infobox" class perhaps? I give up for now - no time to experiment, and surtout not "live". What should I do, Bob, do you want a wider infobox, and should I upload a wider plan? THEPROMENADER 08:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I managed to get rid of the space on the right, created uploaded a new plan, and moved all the pointers accordingly. Can I say that I did rather like the white field behind the flags/emblem? This gave some contrast with the other fields and made the name (on a grey field) more eye-catching. But that's my métier speaking. THEPROMENADER 19:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. It looks much better now. --Bob 20:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yours too. I took your light grey/dark grey banding play up another level as white as a backing to imagery - and in this there is a separation between the white and the light grey of the motto field, so the lines were no longer needed. I like the simplicity (variation on one 'banding' element), but if you have another idea you can put it back. Anyhow it looks great without the lines. THEPROMENADER 22:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the images on non-white backgrounds, simply because many of the flags/logos are white and this creates the need for ugly borders, see Marseille for an example. --Bob 23:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but it is all white now. Still looks good. Actually I put the border around the flag/logo because of the white background - as the main field of many flags is white. Were the background grey, it would not be needed, unless of course the flag was grey... the line seems to cover for all occasions.

Now for the lines around the motto - these must be put back. But rather than a line, I suggest a thin border (3px?) in the same colour/same theme as your grey title fields. I think the field behind the city name could be grey too - this would make a nice top-bottom bracket effect - or could these be another (very whitish) colour entirely?

BTW, I would still like to know where you do your testing : ) THEPROMENADER 07:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second - what is going on here? I think something in either the "infobox" class CSS or Wiki-wide CSS has changed - nothing either you or I did made the background entirely white. Must look into this before making any further changes. THEPROMENADER 07:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are there two separate templates for French cities?

Why can't Major French Cities and French Commune be merged into one template with some optional parameters? Having two different templates is inefficient. Kaldari 18:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Merged as of today. Will list this one for deletion soon once everyone has agreed that what I did was fine. --Bob 17:46, 25 October 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)

Sorry, but I don't like it, especially as it is in the country line... the EU is not a country. --Bob 21:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it is a country-like entity and it deserves to be there. all the best Lear 21 22:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Strong Oppose. The EU is neither a country or a soverign state, so its inclusion in the line describing the country is misplaced, therefore it should be removed. --Bob 23:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that whenever the French president appears and there is a French flag, the European flag is next to it. I can understand not wanting to put it in the country field, but isn't it possible to include its tie to the EU in some way? TheJF 01:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)