Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Netherlands/Dutch municipalities task force/Templates/Archive 1

Pushpin map
There was a discussion in 2009 (I spearheaded it, that's why I remember) about adding the Netherlands pushpin map to the infobox, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Netherlands/Archive 3. At that time the consensus was against adding the pushpin map. I still think the little locator maps are very good on their own. Dutch municipal infoboxes are so complete: they consistently have flags, c.o.a., total/land/water areas, etc, that they are already among the longest infoboxes I have seen. Maybe there should be another discussion to see if the pushpin map should be added and make the infoboxes even more unwieldy... -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There are some good point made in that discussion. Since there was a general consensus not to include them, and the membership of this project is low now I will remove it from the template advice. CRwikiCA  talk 13:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Smaller flag and COA
I propose to have smaller flag and coat-of-arms in the infobox, to constrain the size of the infobox somewhat more. I propose to reduce it to 100x70px and 100x80px respectively, which still provides plenty of detail and keeps the infobox tidy. See example to the right. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I do agree that a case can be made for the fact that the coat of arms and flag are a little oversized with respect to the map image. A slight decrease of this size would bring some more balance. I played around a bit as well. See below for 3 additional size, the 120x100 each is the central current situation for reference. The aspect ratio for most flags are (close to) 3:2, so I think we should keep that ratio. The ratio for coats of arms vary a lot, but they are often taller than wide. The left option then show what happens when the flag and coat of arms get the same height, I do not think this is a proper balance. I would propose the alternative on the right, giving the flag the 3:2 aspect ratio en slightly allowing the height of the coat of arms to go up. The size and detail of the coat of arms and flag are a bit better balanced in that case. CRwikiCA  talk 01:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Your example on the left (120x80 flag and 100x80 arms) makes the COA appear too small. To suit all instances, including COA with shield holders (like Gouda shown at right), it may be best keep the dimensions closer together for consistency. The example of Gouda uses 100x67px for the flag (for 3:2 aspect ratio) and 100x80px for the COA. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. The COA's are all over the places with their aspect ratios, but it would be best to choose a fixed ratio. I added the 100x67+100x80 example to the row. I think it's fine to go with that. CRwikiCA  talk 16:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree. I don't think there will be more, if any, input from other editors, so let's move ahead with this. If there are exceptional cases of unusual flag and COA sizes, we can deal with that on an individual basis. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. CRwikiCA  talk 17:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I update the project page with this. CRwikiCA  <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 17:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Reopened discussion
Coats of arms might have various aspect ratios, but resized images automatically keep their aspect ratio (WP:EIS), so I don't see the point of choosing a fixed ratio. – Editør (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Having the resized images keep their aspect ratio is a benefit for sure. The point of choosing a "fixed" ratio is that the images have a limited bounding box. This means uniformity can be easily achieved across all Dutch municipal articles, in particular to work for the two different aspect ratio's of the COA in Barendrecht and Gouda shown above. CRwikiCA  <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 23:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata
This proposal involves importing data from Wikidata for fields that already exist (this will grow in the future but there are enough to start implementing it now). This will simplify the infobox (because the property numbers remain the same from place to place) and future updates. See example syntax below, for final result see Barendrecht (it won't show correctly here because this page is not linked to the right page at Wikidata). -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 14:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

<pre style="overflow: auto">


 * I have seen the article and there is merit to your proposal. Is there, to your knowledge, any background information about the scope of data transfer to wikidata for Dutch municipalities? There are two issues worth addressing. First the property names have non-descriptive names, can they be called with a more meaningful name? Second, there is no alt text or image caption left for the skyline image. The language would, of course, be different for different language Wikipedia's, but it means it the picture can be changed without changers realizing the caption would need to be changed as well. And a last question is what happens to disambiguated pages? CRwikiCA  <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 17:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good questions. For background, see Wikidata and its talk page. I don't know if more descriptive names can be used. In this case, I used all the available properties in order to give a good example. That doesn't mean we need to use them all at this time, like I have not used P856 (website) at other articles because it doesn't seem to work properly for now ( is not removed). Yes, updating captions and alt text may become an issue, so I would not recommend using this for the lead image for now.  What kind of happening do you mean for disambiguated pages? -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b>  ✉ 19:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean a page like Westland (municipality), Netherlands will it work for that as well? CRwikiCA  <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 20:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. Each article is uniquely linked to the corresponding Wikidata page. -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 05:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There definitely is an advantage to using wikidata. One disadvantage is that sourcing the data as references cannot be forwarded from there, because it would need to be different per country. Do you have an idea how many municipalities have data entered on wikidata? CRwikiCA  <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 20:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are still limitations to Wikidata, but (hopefully) its functionality will grow over time. As for Dutch municipalities, all of them have corresponding Wikidata pages, but not fully filled in yet. For Barendrecht, I first had to add the dialing code, time zone (although not used in the infobox), image, and website. -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 13:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well, I understand the value of it, especially with data that would change often, e.g. population data. But it would be even better if the data would be entered automatically and it would not need to call a property on wikidata. It is of couse a lot of work to get it implemented, and I think it would be something that could be partially automated. Are there any bots at the moment that do such automation? CRwikiCA  <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 18:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not seen any bots inserting Wikidata. If you think it is too premature and better to wait to implement this until it is done across WP at some later more-developed stage, I can understand that. -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 12:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it might be better to have it mature a bit, before implementing it. It would be especially worthwhile for updating population numbers, but there would need to be a way to do that semiautomated with easily reading in databases as is now done with Dutch municipality population. I will keep an eye out, and it might be good to reopen this discussion at some point. If you hear anything more about the implementation of Wikidata, feel free to let me know, either here or on my talk page. CRwikiCA  <i style="color:navy">talk</i> 17:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)