User talk:2Neuenburg

Thanks for your changes to this template. Would you be able to integrate the Swiss populations templates in the Template:Infobox Swiss town? I had made some attempts earlier, but couldn't figure out how to get it to work successfully. It is a protected template, but there is a sandbox associated with the template. Thanks Tobyc75 (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I speak some, but it's been a few years. What do you want to talk to him about? Tobyc75 (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those infoboxes look pretty good. However, there may be another problem with automatically calling the maps. While Tschubby has named them consistently, he's created new maps each year when municipalities are created or merged. So, for example, if you look at Aesch, there are 3 in Switzerland. The maps for Aesch, Zurich and Aesch, Basel-Country are both from 2007 while the one from Aesch, Lucerne is from 2009. So even if the SFOS number is used what about years? Tobyc75 (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted Tschubby about renaming the maps. They are used by 3 other WP's, so it may be a bit of effort to create copies with another name. If that won't work, I could put together a look-up table, with the name and the SFOS number. Tobyc75 (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like creating a look up table is easier. I built a template Template: SFOS2Municipality which will look up the SFOS number and return the municipality name that matches the way that it appears in Tschubby's maps. Try it and see if that'll work for you. Tobyc75 (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like which municipality got the cantonal code and which didn't is pretty random. The template I wrote should match how each municipality was disambiguated. I still need to run through all 2000+ municipalities and make sure, but we may not need to rename anything. Tobyc75 (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those new Infoboxes look great. Thanks for the help on them. For the municipality maps, are you looking for 2010 maps, or only 2009 and earlier? I just ran into a case with Bremgarten bei Bern, where the map is called Karte Gemeinde Bremgarten bei Bern 2010.png but is Karte Gemeinde Bremgarten BE 2007.png for the earlier map. Tobyc75 (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it looks like my data has about a 5% error rate. I'm going through each one manually and should have all or nearly all the bugs out in next day or two. If they are no longer municipalities, then the SFOS number is no longer valid, but the municipality_type should be set to former, in which case the map can be turned off. The other option is to add the former SFOS numbers to the data, but that may be more trouble than it's worth. Tobyc75 (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we have the same problem for the population figures. No SFOS, no population Yep, leaving old SFOS numbers for former municipalities will work fine for the maps, but since the population numbers are no longer published that's even harder to fix. Some of the village articles just use the population from before the merger. Others just use 0. I'm not sure which is the best to use. Tobyc75 (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the template is ready to go live. Thanks Tobyc75 (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected one capitalization problem. The documentation looks good to me. Tobyc75 (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine about the unprotect request. I was offline for much of yesterday, so I didn't get your messages until now, but I'll check on the unprotect request. Tobyc75 (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys should hold your conversation in one place. It's impossible to work out what you're talking about :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deeply moved Toby… the Barnstar was just too much… thank you!!!! hahaha, you have no idea how long I hit my head against the wall working on this template. Appreciate all the help! Tobyc75 (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Swiss Barnstar of National Merit
		For your efforts to rewrite the Swiss Towns Infobox, making it more responsive and easier to use, as well as saving much hair pulling on my part. Tobyc75 (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
		this WikiAward was given to 2Neuenburg by Tobyc75 (talk) on 16:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this to the talk page for the template, to put our future discussions in a more central place.Tobyc75 (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this comment

On a related note, with the villages, the message

[[:File|view map of xxxx]]

is showing up if the village is not in the SFOS2Municipality template. Can you add something to hide this completely if it doesn't find a municipality name? We could try just using the village name, but some of these villages don't have any maps. See Feldmeilen and Irgenhausen for examples. Tobyc75 (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

at Infobox Swiss towns

…so here's mine: the population and the map in Kollbrunn are incorrect and so they should be removed regardless, the area is wrong, the density is wrong, the whole infobox is misleading. If you care to add the correct ones, there's Template:Infobox settlement you could use, but you can't use Infobox Swiss town as it adds the pages where is transcluded to a number of categories implying the page is about a municipality, which again is misleading.--2Neuenburg (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I fixed Tann, Switzerland. You could take care of the other two.--2Neuenburg (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2Neuenburg, and it's not nice to remove essential information from articles. btw: my comments in the version histories are messages and reasons were given to re-establish that essential information about a village ;-)

The problem was, when you removed the template - you do know, i'm convinced - that you also removed (at least) per article the "lead" image, you also removed essential information as population, area, neighbooring settlements, elevation, ZIP/PLZ etc.etc. when you removed systematically the CH-town template from the articles referring to CH-villages started by other users (without any information why to do so). But that fact you do know, and that reason to re-establish that fact i did mention in the version history of the articles above mentioned.

Thank you for adding the term "village" to the template, great, it's a pleasure to do the rest – from my side, there's no hurry, will do it when adding some additional information to those articles. Best regards, Roland 18:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost, don't edit my messages again. If you have anything to add you can do so below my comments, as per Wiki policy.

Second, leaving an edit summary hurriedly copypasted over 10 different articles by no means equals warning me. I had to find out for myself that those villages were magically popping back into the category, certainly not because of any message from your side.

As I told you before and will tell you again, the figures you are using are wrong and are of no use to anyone. Surely you know as you speak German and can check by yourself. What do you have to say about that?

For your last remark, I gave you one complete template (Infobox settlement, the right one, as opposed to the one you are improperly using) and all that is left for you to do is add *correct* figures. You can decide for yourself when of if you're going to do that, but if you don't, at least don't hinder the efforts of those who are dedicating their time to improve the categorisation of articles within the project. I will wait for an answer from you, and decide whether to revert your edits again and that the 'kindness' template above this message is just talk, or if we can come up with a shared solution like we're supposed to. The way I see it, it depends entirely on you.--2Neuenburg (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... OR (from this user's side) to remove essential data from articles started by other wikipedians

[quotation]: Here, I fixed Tann, Switzerland. You could take care of the other two [remark by roland_zh: in fact Feldmeilen; Auslikon; Au, Zurich; Kollbrunn; Rikon im Tösstal; Tann, Switzerland; Irgenhausen; Samstagern; Kempten, Switzerland, two others were removed from my watchlist].--2Neuenburg (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC) [quotation end]

Hi, and to conserve for eternity, your above "notice" will surely not be editted, really, our co-wikipedians will read your "kind message" as you wrote it [ironical modus ends now]. imho it's my "user page", i did not remove or change your comment, imho it is allowed to include [comments] as i did (see above), and to change the item of a little bit "misleading" title is not a "crime".

Back to Swiss villages: I did [quotation] add *correct* figures [quotation end], as you have "told" me on 17:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC), i.e. for the villages Kollbrunn [1] and Rikon im Tösstal [2], and i did re-establish data removed and partially restored in Tann, Switzerland [3] by your four edits in all.

Back to facts for the second: Months ago, i used a given template (Infobox Swiss town) that imho (was) allowed to use for Swiss villages for the villages above mentioned (and some more) before you did your first edit on 00:23, 15 April 2010, as 2Neuenburg.

Back to facts for the third: I read your last "kind comment" again, and as far as i know to read English (or German), you did not tell "before" [as of 17:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC) for the first time] to use the template "settlement" etc.etc.

Back to facts for the forth: In addition, before, i searched on Wikipedia:WikiProject Switzerland (and your user page) for any notices or discussions initiated by you referring to what you're doing in categorisation, but was not able to find any hints what kind of "effort" should be realized.

Back to facts for the fifth: There are wikipedians [quotation] dedicating their time [quotation end] to contribute/write articles, and some of them do not appreciate when their [quotation] efforts are hindered [quotation end] and essential information are removed in serials by [quotation] leaving an edit summary hurriedly copypasted [quotation end] as "no municipality" or usally nothing to simplify categorisation ...

If, or not, to leave an edit summary as Reverted as also removed coord./el./pop./images etc. imho a template for CH-villages is the solution ...' is the better or completely worse way, that shall decide our co-wikipedians that perhaps read this section.

To refer to commons policy and kindness campaign, and in the same moment to act as insulting and arrogant as you do, is imho a "bad joke" and not worth to be commented.

[quotation]For your last remark respectively First and foremost,[quotation end] do not contact me again, [quotation] second [quotation end] to close that thread definitely: You said all what is to say imho in a very agressive and impolited way, i said all what is to say; imho kindness policy "recommends" to close that thread definetely – for principle, further contacting in that tone will be considered as vandalism respectively i do not plan to continue a pseudo-discussion (in fact you think to tell what is allowed to do and what no) at that level.

Regards, Roland 23:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

[thread closed]

This discussion is not over unless there is an agreement. If you wish to keep doing just whatever you want, that's too bad because this is a collaborative project. Yes you're right, this isn't the nicest I'm ever been to another user, but if you want me to be more agreeable you have to do the same, it's supposed to work both ways. And you reverting my edits and failing to warn me about it (twice) isn't very high on the nice scale. And neither is throwing in a cocky remark or two for the wiki-crowd (Wikipedia isn't a spectator sport) and then acting all self-righteous if I do just the same.

Bottom line is: you want to know what I'm doing. I'm making sure that all the articles in the categories 'municipality of the canton xyz' are there for a reason. In the Zurich category there were some 180 pages, but there are only 171 communes in Zurich so I figured something needed fixing. And you adding back most of the articles to the *wrong* category (as still is some of your data, check around) is frustrating my efforts. So please stop doing that.--2Neuenburg (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From Infobox Swiss towns

I've updated a test infobox to remove the [[:File|view map of xxxx]] message if no map is available and also added a line to allow for 2011 maps (for next year). The template is at Template:Infobox Swiss town/sandbox2 and the testcases are at testcases. This will help in the cases (rightly or wrongly) where a infobox article is added. I'm working on fixing the population problem. It might be best if the documentation just states that for villages, use either the most recent population from before the merger or 0. Tobyc75 (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]