Template talk:Infobox Peri GR

Sample infobox
The wikicode below will create the Infobox at the right:

Purpose and use of the template
This template is used for peripheries of Greece.

Fields
NOTE: Population Density is automatically calculated in both Metric and Imperial, as goes the same for area.
 * name: the name, as commonly used in English, without "Prefecture"
 * name_local: the Greek name ("Περιφέρεια X", in which X has the genitive form)
 * image_map: image file name of the location map
 * capital: seat of administration of the periphery
 * prefec: names of the prefectures that are part of the periphery
 * population: population data (NO COMMAS!)
 * population_as_of: year of census
 * area: in km² (NO COMMAS!)
 * website: link, see example

Information deliberately left out of this template

 * Address of the administration
 * E-mail addresses of the administration, tourist information etc.
 * lowest and highest elevation
 * coordinates
 * flags, coats of arms

Discussion
Please leave your remarks about this template below. Markussep 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Transclusion to Infobox Settlement
I'm not principally against changing this infobox into a wrapper for Infobox Settlement, as has been done a week ago by an anonymus (the later User talk:Iwillremembermypassthistime?) without any prior discussion. However, the way it is done now, it doesn't have the same functionality the old infobox had, and some errors definitely need to be fixed if this wrapper is going to be used from now on: Markussep Talk 08:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * the infoboxes for municipalities, prefectures and peripheries had the same style and colours, this is broken now
 * the field with the subdivisions (prefectures) isn't shown anymore
 * the capital is shown with square brackets around the link


 * the infoboxes for municipalities, prefectures and peripheries had the same style and colours, this is broken now
 * ❌, style uniformity with other European first-division templates is more important IMO


 * the field with the subdivisions (prefectures) isn't shown anymore


 * the capital is shown with square brackets around the link
 * --Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the point of transcluding/wrapping one template into another? It seems pointless. El Greco(talk) 15:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, we could just substitute the current template.--Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't share Iwillremembermypassthistime's preference for uniformity with other European first-division templates, and I don't think the new infobox looks as good as the old one did. Of course, if a template is very ugly or little informative, or if there are several infoboxes in use for the same category of divisions, it should be replaced, but that's not the case here IMO. An infobox should be user-friendly and attractive for editors that actually add the content to the articles, a customized wrapper is useful for that. Markussep Talk 09:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I never suggested substituting the current template like you (Iwillremembermypassthistime) did and went ahead and did so without any discussion. The prior design and layout was suffient for the job at hand, and nowhere on Wikipedia does it state that all templates must be designed like Infobox Settlement. Therefore, I suggest we go back to the original layout/design and work off that. Furthermore, in agreeance with Markussep - even the European first-division template don't have uniformity. El Greco(talk) 16:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with the template in its original form? What's the reason for this wrapping? - Sthenel (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't oppose changes to a page just because you think the original is good enough - when you revert someone else's edits you have to provide a valid expanation. Citing policy, "Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes – nobody owns articles." Even then, I've always been available to discuss the matter properly and in a civil manner, yet you feel you can dismiss my efforts just by mentioning a generic lack of consensus, and the absence of a discussion to which you have repeatedly failed to take part. You're obviously basing your decision on principle rather than expediency.--Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. You don't own the article and you are the only user who don't want this template for no obvious reason. It's because of you that the whole discussion started but you have not shown the slightest argument about your thesis. On the contrary you started edit wars in all the related articles and now here. So could you tell us why this template shouldn't exist? - Sthenel (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)