Template talk:Infobox Italian comune

Rename to Infobox Italy comune?
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)
 * The WP:RM explanation is here. In Category:Templates calling Infobox settlement apart from this one, only 2x French, 1x German, 3x Russian are still using adjectival form. Adjectival form doesn't work well for many countries, while the simple country name is never ambiguous since defined by the title of the main article for the country. TerraCyprus (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

please implement the above WP:RM, the week mentioned above has passed. TerraCyprus (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh how time flies. But now that I look again, I'm starting to have doubts. I've had a look at the category and as far as I can see, the consistency in use of noun vs. adjective is there to a large extent because of a series of moves, like this one or this one, which you performed in the last two months. – Uanfala (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC) And I can see for example in this discussion about the related move of the Swiss template, that there were some objections to the new name pattern. – Uanfala (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh how time flies I 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 . 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 starting finish 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 moves there 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 pattern but 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. 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)
 * I'm not familiar enough in the naming of them, so I have seen this but didn't want to implement it myself. But I will say that WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS is a thing; if some page moves happened in the past few months (esp on high usage templates) to standardise the naming style of IS wrappers, and they haven't been reverted, that does create some level of consensus for this naming structure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * TerraCyprus, I'm sorry, I realise this may be frustrating for you. I would just like to note that when you place a request for an uncontroversial move at WP:RMT, there is no obligation for others to carry out that move, and in fact, editors who clerk that venue are required to turn down any moves that appear likely to be controversial, and instead convert them into an RM discussion. Maybe it's my fault that that I didn't do that straight away and instead went for a "middle" option that I thought would be less trouble for everyone involved. Maybe I should have looked more closely, but it would have been more helpful if you had been a little bit more forthright about the recency of that consistency. If there is implicit consensus for a move for a title that's a few weeks old, then there would definitely have also been a consensus for the title of the preceding decade. As for the the discussion on Anthony Appleyard's talk page that I linked to above – I didn't read it in depth, but I did come across one comment – by ZH8000 – which was not favourable to the new name.  I think at this stage, the best thing to do is start an an actual RM discussion, which should result in consensus for one or the other title. TerraCyprus, you can bundle any remaining moves of this particular type that you have in mind into a single nomination (see Requested moves). – Uanfala (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ZH8000 wrote, seemingly missing the point that the template is coded to only be for municipalities:
 * A Swiss town has a distinct difference compared to a Swiss municipality, see List of towns in Switzerland.
 * Thee are many more municipalities than towns (i.e. a municipality not being a town).
 * Not all Swiss towns are also a municipality, though most. However, some towns are just a part of a municipality, and could also be a former municipality! (conceptual error since the beginning)
 * A former town is not necessarily the same as a former municipality.
 * That is all referring to town vs. municipality. Not to Swiss vs. Switzerland. Ajectival form is problematic for several places, "Greek place" in Cyprus, but Infobox Greece place is for places in Greece, even if they are ethnically Albanian. French place in Belgium. German place in Italy. The infoboxes for Cape Verde, New Zealand use noun since inception. Procedural: WP:RM/TR says 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:
 * there has been any past debate about the best title for the page;
 * someone could reasonably disagree with the move.
 * Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested." - I don't see any such reason. TerraCyprus (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The comment by ZH8000 that I was referring to is: 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 template. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * what makes you think there isn't consensus? "much discussion" isn't if no one opposed to the question to the proposal and no one answered the question in the section headline, which is Rename to Infobox Italy comune? with no. 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 alone is 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)
 * Pointing to individual examples of templates that have always used the noun form does not establish precedence when templates that use or used to use the adjective form exist. Pointing to templates you renamed without any discussion does not establish precedence. Your assertion that ZH8000['s ...] statement doesn't reflect reality in the English Wikipedia does 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 rename no 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)

Requested move 10 November 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

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, as a follow up to the thread above. – Uanfala (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █ 11:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, reasons can be found at WP:RM/TR explanation. TerraCyprus (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This RM should probably be taken in conjunction with Template talk:Infobox French place. – Uanfala (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. BD2412  T 19:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per other other discussion: the new name is ungrammatical, and the old one has never caused confusion. – Uanfala (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose agreeing with Uanfala. --Ferdi2005 (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I understand there is some minor potential for confusion as there are so called "Italian communes" (i.e., Italian-style communes) outside of Italy and this template specifies communes only within Italy, however, I do not think this is that confusing and the proposed change does introduce grammatical issues. If I were to consider explicitly putting "Italy" in the name I would prefer Infobox comune of Italy (or even Infobox comune in Italy) over the proposed Infobox Italy comune. I do not think the introduced grammatical errors outweigh the minor confusion potentially caused by the current naming, especially in light of the ability to rectify both with other alternatives than the proposed. —Uzume (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2021 (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.

Template-protected edit request on 30 April 2021
Can anyone please change Dialing code to Dialing code ? I have done it in the sandbox. 90.235.39.58 (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 18:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Template fails for Friuli Venezia Giulia
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)


 * Thank you, to whoever fixed the infobox to accept the region of Friuli Venezia Giulia without a (non-existent) province nor (non-existent) metropolitan city. While the article says that a Friuli Venezia Giulia statute allows for the potential upgrading of the region's capital, Trieste, to a metropolitan city, that is an issue for the Trieste article on some future (if ever) day. Jmg38 (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 February 2022
The following fields all contain data linked from Wikidata, including references:
 * area_footnotes
 * area_total_km2
 * population_total
 * population_footnotes
 * population_as_of

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)
 * ✅ – to, the Wikidata calls have been temporarily removed until more tests are run. Good catch, and thank you for your patience!  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 10:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Note
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 &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 10:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! Vesuvio14 (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * my pleasure! letting you know of this revert and the need for further tests.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;-  ed.  put'r there 11:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * the 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 &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 01:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * with to the sandbox, an if function replaced the if empty template in the footnote params. That appears to do what we want it to do for the footnotes. That can go live now unless anyone thinks there is a better way.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;-  ed.  put'r there 02:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Is live.  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 19:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Template uses a non-existent parameter
The parameter  was removed upstream  (in Infobox settlement, see  and I believe ), but this template still uses it. --ZandDev (msg) 01:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm still getting this issue as of December 14th. It puts the page in Category:Pages using infobox settlement with unknown parameters, even when that page isn't using short_description (see, for example, Deruta). Anyone figured out what's going on? HeyElliott (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)