This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

France: French communes This template is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance This template is within the scope of WikiProject French communes, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Is it worth us editing the template to include a parameter below the Crest and Flag for the logo of a commune as many article have in French and are seen in English articles for cities across North America (i.e. Vancouver? Question to the editors, don't want to change anything without discussion. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a nice option, to add a logo image. Could you make a test version in the sandbox? Markussep ^Talk 19:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A line should be added in the infobox for the president of the intercommunality within which the commune is located. For example, these two lines of codes from the Infobox settlements:
|leader_title1 =
|leader_name1 =
This is particularly important for large French cities which are now also metropolises. For example, see Lyon, the infobox displays only the name of the mayor of the small commune of Lyon, and not the president of the metropolis of Lyon, despite the fact the metropolis has now more powers than the commune, and is directly elected. This infobox without the name of the metropolis president reflects the situation more than 10 years ago and is outdated.
ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are separate articles about at least the largest intercommunalities. The presidents of intercommunalities can be mentioned there, I would prefer not to mention them in the infoboxes about member communes. Because these infoboxes (and articles) are primarily about the communes, not the intercommunalities. Markussep ^Talk 14:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's perhaps true for smaller communes, but for the main city in each metropolis (Lyon for Lyon, Bordeaux for Bordeaux, etc) such a line should exist. The articles about these cities are not about the "commune" strictly speaking, but about the wider definition of these cities (otherwise the Lyon article would contain no information about the airport of Lyon, the Bordeaux article would contain no information about the university of Bordeaux, technically in the commune of Talence, etc). Having the infobox of Lyon mentioning only the mayor of the small commune of Lyon and not the president of the metropolis would be like the infobox of Brussels mentioning only the mayor of the small commune of Brussels (note that in this example the editors have chosen to indicate only the name of the president of Brussels-Capital in the infobox and not even the mayor of the commune, whereas here I'm proposing both). ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: looks like a consensus needs to be established for this alteration. Please garner the needed consensus before using the {{edit template-protected}} template again. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 17:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit request by Markussep above (section before this one) gathered no consensus either, and yet the request was approved... I could hardly imagine that such an informational and non-controversial request would immediately trigger opposition from someone I have never talked to before. Especially since the request consists in ADDING something (not even mandatory, up to each editor), and not removing something from the infobox. ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you hopefully know and understand, all edits are subject to consensus. Some edits seem uncontroversial and either that is the case, or they are reverted to generate more discussion. Your proposed edit, whatever the level of its perceived helpfulness, has been challenged before it has been implemented. That indicates the need for more discussion about the edit before it is made to this high-use template. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 00:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no discussion going on, since Markussep, content with having blocked the request I made, is not responding to my reply to his comment above, despite the fact he/she has edited Wikipedia repeatedly since my reply ([1]). I don't understand how one single editor can block an edit request, and then let the matter freeze. ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you were expecting a reply from me. I don't check my watchlist every hour, so if it's urgent you should tag me, for instance using {{Reply to}}. My opposing your idea has nothing to do with you personally, and I don't think I have given you any reason to assume that. I don't know you, you probably don't know me, and this is the first time I have come across you on Wikipedia, as far as I know. My main reason for opposing your idea is the widely accepted standard about infoboxes (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE): "to summarize key facts that appear in the article". I don't think the leader of an intercommunality is a key fact about a commune. Obviously this information belongs in the infobox at the intercommunality article (e.g. Lyon Metropolis), and it's also given in the Lyon article, in the "Administration" section. Note that I'm discussing the infobox here, obviously the Saint-Exupéry airport belongs in the Lyon article, but not in its infobox. And also note that the Brussels article is about the Brussels-Capital Region, the commune/city of Brussels has a separate article, which mentions its mayor in its infobox. Markussep ^Talk 08:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To editors ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ and Markussep: suppose I am torn between the study I made of articles about smaller entities that are part of larger entities, where I invariably find limited info in the ibox and sometimes even in the articles about government and administration, and weighing that against the fact that the proposed edit does give editors a broader and better choice of what they can add to an ibox if they actually do consider the info to be a "key fact". Editors don't always agree about such things, which are worked out on the talk pages; however, there is also the thought that this edit could become just one more thing for editors to argue about. All this that I've covered tends to make me continue to be neutral about this edit. So as much as I wish I could, I cannot be the "tie-breaker" where this edit is concerned. Perhaps a wider-range discussion is needed? P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 19:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @Paine Ellsworth:, feel free to open a wider-range discussion (I'm not familiar with how that works). I would just like to stress again the point missed by @Markussep: these infoboxes are not about the administrative entity called "commune", they are about the city (in its broader sense). That's why these infoboxes contain information about urban area and metro area population (if these infoboxes were strictly for the commune, then urban area and metro area information would be irrelevant and misleading there). The "commune" is just one level of administration of these cities. In the past it was the only level of administration, which is why some editors still (consciously or unconsciously) equate French city with "commune", but in the past 10 years with the emergence of metropolitan authorities (now directly elected by citizens in the case of Lyon), the "commune" is not the only level of administration of these cities anymore, it is only one of 2 levels of administration along with the "metropolises".

As for Brussels, its situation is exactly the same as Lyon now: a commune (City of Brussels, City of Lyon), and above it a directly elected metropolitan authority (Brussels-Capital Region, Metropolis of Lyon). If the "Brussels" article is reserved for the "Brussels-Capital Region", and a separate article exists for the "City of Brussels", then perhaps the same should be done for Lyon ("Lyon" article for the metropolis, and a separate article "City of Lyon" for the commune). As I believe editors are not culturally ready for such a big leap forward, and Lyon is rather unique (other French metropolises are still undirectly elected), I suggest these French city articles be dedicated both to the commune and the metropolis, which is why I have suggested that the leader of the metropolis should appear in the infobox.

And from a practical point of view: people often come to Wikipedia to find a quick information. At the moment, if they check the infobox, they see only the name of the mayor of the City of Lyon, and would miss the information that on the ground, the president of the Metropolis of Lyon is actually wielding more powers than the mayor of the City of Lyon, which is defeating the purpose of an encyclopedia, isn't it? You may say "they can find the information inside the article anyway", but then what's the point of an infobox in the first place if we argue that the information can be found in the article anyway? ព្រះមហាក្សត្ររាជ (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could post a message at WT:FRANCE linking to this discussion. As for Lyon, there are already articles about the city/commune (Lyon) and about the intercommunality (Lyon Metropolis). The article Lyon is primarily about the city itself, with some exceptions like the universities in the suburbs and the airport to the east of the city (outside the metropolis, BTW). The article also mentions the metropolis (in the Administration section). I think that's what the readers would expect. I suppose the article Lyon Metropolis could be expanded. Markussep ^Talk 12:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With the French loving their flag and proudly brandishing it when they can even on food packaging, I believe it's appropriate to use the template {{flag|France}} for the Country, as it would reflect this ;) Synotia (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the use of flags in infoboxes is generally deprecated, see MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. The same guideline also says: Human geographic articles – for example, settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes., which would apply here. For some countries it is done, for many it isn't. Personally I wouldn't prefer it. Markussep ^Talk 09:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a useful shortcut for the brain. In some Wikipedias like French, Spanish Wikipedia it is used even in biographies. I personally find that less important there, but for geographical, political, military stuff it is. Synotia (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I (respectfully) detest that deprecation; flags aren't distracting, they're a visual aid that make text more pleasant to read. I'd strongly support changing to {{flag|France}}, and I'll note that even that MOS doesn't discourage it. DFlhb (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ispf.pf/Publications/fiches-communales is no longer accessible, please change it to https://data.ispf.pf/Publications/fiches-communales. --BigBullfrog (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BigBullfrog --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]