Template talk:Infobox Belgium municipality

Bug to repair

I got a problem with the images, headings and subheadings when I use this template. For example in Tournai, edit buttons of headings are misplaced, same for the pictures. Can anyone help? David Descamps 12:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox for municipalities?

(the part until 3 February 2007 was copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Belgium)

I noticed there's not one standard infobox template for towns/municipalities in Belgium. Some towns have no infobox at all (Antwerp and many smaller places), some (non-standard) infoboxes for other towns (Leuven), and several very simple infoboxes (Mechelen, Liège (city), Namur (city)). There's also {{Infobox Belgium Municipality}}, which looks rather OK, but is not widely used (Ghent, Tournai and some smaller places), and needs some attention IMO (a map of the position within Belgium would be nice). For some inspiration see the infoboxes for towns in Germany (example: Cologne) and Greece (examples: Kalamata and the new {{Infobox Greek Dimos}}). I'd like to help improve here, thoughts? Markussep 16:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a standard infobox template, and I think the Infobox Belgium Municipality is a very good one. It's essentially the same as the templates used on the Dutch and the French Wikipedia. But it does still need a tiny bit of work, for instance: how do we translate Deelgemeente into English? In the Infobox Belgium Municipality template "Commune's sections" is used, but I don't think that's an accurate translation. In a similar template I used once, I translated it as "constituent communes", but I'm not quite sure about that translation either.--Ganchelkas 16:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Belgium Municipality has some nice features I didn't notice at first, for instance the automatic lookup function for coordinates. Some things I would like to change about the infobox are the map (I think it's much more informative to show the location within Belgium, for instance with a dot-on-map such as {{Lageplan}} or {{Location map}}, maybe combined with the location-in-the-province-map), "coat of arms" instead of "blazon", show no seconds in the coordinates (that's way too precise for a town), improve the alignment of the population figures, hide the NIS number (the national statistics institute of Belgium is meant, isn't it?), and there are some commas instead of decimal points. About the constituent municipalities/communes, are they still administrative units, or only formerly independent municipalities? Maybe "districts" or "boroughs" would be OK, or simply "subdivisions". Markussep 18:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the location within Belgium is preferable. I mean, if the location within the province is shown, someone who is unfamiliar with the provinces of Belgium still doesn't have a clue as to where the municipality is located. The NIS is indeed the "Nationaal Instituut voor Statistiek" (National Institute for Statistics), but I think in English "Statistics Belgium" is more commonly used. And the "deelgemeenten" are formerly independent municipalities, but "districts" can't be used as, for instance, the municipality of Antwerp is divided into districts, but in almost all other municipalities the "deelgemeenten" are not an administrative subdivision. Perhaps it would be best to leave the part about the "deelgemeenten" out altogether, after all they can be mentioned in the text. And I think we can also leave out the telephone areas and the distribution of seats in the Municipal Council.--Ganchelkas 01:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Postal codes and area codes are given in several other infoboxes, I think they can stay in. About the deelgemeenten, you're probably right, and they clutter up the box if there are many, see for instance the Tournai infobox. I'll make some of the smaller changes I suggested, and I'll try to make a nice dot-on-map later. Markussep 14:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

About the 'Pop. pyramid' and 'City council' sections, is it OK if I change these to respectively 'Age structure' (because there isn't a graphical illustration and because it's the term used in the CIA World Factbook) and 'Governing parties' (because I think that section is meant to show which parties are in the governing coalition). Also, perhaps we should remove the 'Community' bit (as on the Dutch Wikipedia), I don't think the Communities are relevant, especially not in the Brussels-Capital Region where both the Flemish and the French Communities would have to be mentioned for each municipality. Only for the municipalities in the German-speaking Community that bit would be meaningful, but then we're talking about 9 municipalities out of 589. Plus, the fact that they're part of the German-speaking Community can be mentioned in the introductions to the articles about those municipalities. We could, perhaps, add the country instead (as on the French and Spanish Wikipedias).--Ganchelkas 15:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Governing parties OK, for Pop. pyramid I'd prefer Age distribution. Country should indeed be included, like it is for towns in Germany and Greece. I think the communities are relevant enough, for the Brussels region we should show two then. BTW, I've been trying to use the coordinates given in the geography subtemplate for a dot-on-map, but I can't get this subtemplate and its #switch: feature to communicate with either {{tl:Lageplan}} or {{tl:Location map Belgium}} without disrupting the whole infobox. There is a workaround (Lageplan or Location map with manually given coordinates), but that implies a lot of work. Any ideas how to fix this? Markussep 17:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the sections part, and inserted a "postal codes" line instead. I've added the infobox to Ixelles as an example for the Brussels municipalities. One thing I'm not happy about is the width of the columns. I can't get the right column to appear as I want it to (=wider), and therefore many lines are broken in two or more there. Markussep 12:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I made several minor edits to the template and some of the templates used in the template (for instance removing the "Prov. of" in the provincial templates). And unfortunately, I don't know how to fix the dot-on-map. --Ganchelkas 14:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I added an (optional) picture, meant for skylines or characteristic places/buildings. It's currently only active on Tournai. See if you like it, and if it needs some editing. Markussep 18:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it, I only have one small suggestion. I think the bits saying "Coat of Arms" and "Flag" should be reinserted, but other than that everything seems fine to me. :-) --Ganchelkas 18:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed something. It seems that the coordinates of the municipality appear in the top right-hand corner of the article in some articles with the infobox (e.g. Ixelles) and that that isn't the case in some other articles (e.g. Leuven). Do you know whether this has got anything to do with the infobox?--Ganchelkas 16:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you move your mouse over the pictures, you see "Coat of arms" and "Flag", don't you think that's enough? One other suggestion: we could remove the flag altogether (I think the coat of arms is enough heraldry), and put the "location in the province" map in that position. To answer your question: Ixelles has the line {{coor title dm|50|49|N|4|22|E|}} in its code, not in the box. I guess it's a good idea to add an automatic coor title to the infobox, we need the coordinates for the map anyway. Markussep 16:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've included the coor title template in the infobox. I've removed "solitary" coor title templates from articles with the infobox, since they show up on top of each other. Next, I'll remove the flag. Markussep 23:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that's enough, yes. I'm not sure about the flag though, there are sometimes differences between the arms and the flag. Perhaps it would be better to show both maps next to each other (sort of like in the Berlin article), and then show both the coat of arms and the flag?--Ganchelkas 10:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, two maps next to each other either makes the box too wide, or the maps are only intelligible with a magnifying glass, like in the Berlin infobox. There's open space in the south-west corner of the map of Belgium, maybe we can fit a flag in it. It's possible, see Composite images, but I've never worked with that. Markussep 14:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither have I. After thinking it over, I think there might be another, probably easier solution. What if we add the flags to the heading of the infobox, before the name of the municipality, where a Belgian flag used to be?--Ganchelkas 15:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's try that, with a mouse-over text "Municipal flag". It probably works for the simpler flags (Antwerp, Liège), I wonder what it looks like for the more detailed flags like Gistel or the city of Brussels. Markussep 15:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Works fine, the only (very minor) issue is that alternative names come under the flag (see City of Brussels). Shall we keep it like this? Markussep 16:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The flags look neat. :-) And yes, I think we should keep it like this. After all, the Belgian flag also used to be above the alternative names, if I recall correctly.--Ganchelkas 16:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Limitation wikipedia

There is a limitation with wikipedia servers : the amount of template inclusion and on one page is limited (see Wikipedia:Template_limits). For the moment, we don't see the point now but if a page of a belgian municipality use more templates, we will have a problem. Perhaps we should make the template much simpler and manage more "noinclude" tags in it. David Descamps 14:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to init some variables of a template by the use of another one? For example, "Infobox Belgium Municipality/Geography" init "lat_deg", "lat_min", "lon_deg", "lon_min", "area", ... of this template that calls it. David Descamps 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Map bugs

David Descamps and I discovered a bug in the {{Location map Belgium}} template: the dot is not in the same position for Int. Expl. and Firefox users. I replaced it with the {{Lageplan}} template, which has the right positions for both browsers. That's nice, but now there's (at least in my IE) a horizontal line above the map. It disappears when I choose class="infobox" instead of class="infobox geography", but that ruins the look of the infobox. Suggestions? Markussep 19:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Geographical precision

Added lat_sec and lon_sec for geographical precision. Omitting this causes many articles to point to locations kilometers away from town centers, esp. visible on Google Earth and similar maps. See remark by a user here [1]. --LimoWreck (talk) 01:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there actually a way to have a precision up to the second in the coordinate URL, but to display the precision only up to the minute in the templates? This is how it is done on the dutch wikipedia, e.g. nl:Zelem. This way you have the detailled precision necessary for displaying and mapping purposes, but you can limit the coordinate length in the templates... --LimoWreck (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

picture legend doesnt works...

i was translating that to turkish wikipedia. can you message me when the problem get solved? thanks Kıdemli (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Aronidisement

I can appreciate that thinking of a terse translation of "arondisement" may be a challenge, but it needs to be done. The word is not English and should not be in the template. How about "District"?

The words "flag" and "coat of arms" are showing up in red in the finished product. This needs to be changed to blue or black. Red means undefined. Student7 (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

placeholder

Placeholder is very ugly when no flag or coat of arms is given. Can someone correct in order to not show nothing at all in that case? --'''Attilios''' (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox settlement

(Discussion copied from User talk:Fram, better to have it here)

What informations and functionalities were lost in my edit?--Nero the second (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The age distribution (pyramid), percentage of foreigners, perhaps others as well (only noticed these in my short test). Fram (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, there must be some kind of mistake then. The only thing I purposefully left out is the % of males and females because I think it's utterly pointless to add it in. In which article did those infos fail to show up?--Nero the second (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Look at e.g. the current info on Ghent. It has the males and females (which indeed were dropped as well in your version), and the age distribution, and percentage of foreigners. Fram (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I've found out what the issue was, and it should be fixed now. Can you you check my sandbox and let me know if anything's amiss?--Nero the second (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks more complete (still misses the male_female distribution, perhaps other things I haven't noticed yet). No idea what the advantage is of converting this to the general template though, I know that some editors want to have few templates with many parameters (or numbered free parameters), others prefer more and more specific, leaner templates. It looks to me as if the Belgian template is easier to use than the general one. Fram (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In this particular case I think that the improvement is in the ease of editing: you can add/change parameters much more easily compared to the difficulty of changing the arcane wikicode of the older template. Otherwise the two templates have a very similar appearance.--Nero the second (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That's only when you want to change the template: but much more people want to use the infobox than there are people who want to or need to change the infobox. Aren't we changing things here for the benefit of a few, while making it worse for many others? By the way, the wikicode of infobox settlement isn't any easier than that of the Belgian one, so now if you want to add male-female, or remove "foreigners" visually from beneath "age distribution" and put it on the same indentation as age distribution, you need to change (or understand) the infobox settlement. Not really an improvement IMO. Fram (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Making it worse for many? How is it any harder to use the template now? There's no difference whatsoever. It still uses the same fields in the same way. And it's no easier to edit? Compared to the disordered and confusing wikicode that is the norm for most of these infoboxes?--Nero the second (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The infobox settlement has code like {{#ifeq:{{#expr:{{#if:{{{image_flag|}}}|1|0}}+{{#if:{{{image_seal|}}}|1|0}}+{{#if:{{{image_shield|}}}|1|0}}+{{#if:{{{image_blank_emblem| }}}|1|0}}}}|2|, I don't see how that is easier than the current one.

By the way, just reimplementing your preferred infobox over the old one, during a discussion, is rather rude and goes against WP:BRD. I have reverted your changes again. Looking at e.g. Antwerp, the result of the common infobox is that we lose the male-female distribution, the "foreigners" get a strange location (as part of "age distribution"?), and dates are no longer shown in a consequent manner (original had DD month YYYY, your version mixed 2010-01-01 with 1 July 2007 and so on). So your change is not an improvement and should not be implemented just for the sake of it. Fram (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

BRD is not a guideline nor a policy, it's just an essay written by someone and holds no authority. And from my point of view, your continuous reverting, despite my best efforts to fix whatever faults you pointed out, is even ruder. But never mind that. Just tell me: what kind of changes should I implement to meet your expectations for an improved template? Because so far your argument has mostly been that the template is good enough already and that it needn't be changed, which is out of tune with WP:WIP (another essay, I know) and what I feel to be the general spirit of the project. So I'm not trying to force my version of the template on you or anybody else, but I'm asking you to direct your criticism towards the improvement of the template, rather than just keeping with the status quo. I will change the date formats to be consistent and move se 'foreigners' parameter to a separate section. Is there any reason why you want me to reinstate the gender ratio, other than because it was there before? Is the variation between one municipality and another stark enough to be worth reporting? Cheers, Nero the second (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

BRD is one of the most widely followed and accepted essays though. Apart from that; you make changes which are not improvements, so you get reverted. Why would I let things stand which make a few hundred articles worse just to spare your feelings? My argument is not that the template is good enough and needn't be changed, my argument is that you need to male an improvement, not just changing for the sake of it. So far, your changes made the articles worse, so no reason to keep them around. Can you pleae tell me what it is that will be "better" for the reader after your changes?

And please, please, continue this discussion at the template page, not here. Fram (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

My changes "made articles worse". That's not an argument, that's just your opinion and what I'm asking you here is to motivate it. You reverted me, you have to give your reasons for it, not the other way around. If it's just the issues you have mentioned above, I will try to fix them, is there anything else? PS: the tone of the bit about "sparing my feelings" was really inopportune bordering on contemptuous. I hope that wasn't intentional, because I'm not trying to harass you but I feel that some explaining is in order on your part. That's all.--Nero the second (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And please, please, continue this discussion at the template page, not here. Fram (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really just about the template any longer. Besides, I'm still waiting for a reply to my question on this page or any other.--Nero the second (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I had written a polite reply, but got edit conflicted with your addition of "I'm still waiting for a reply to my question on this page or any other". Well, I'm very sorry if my many swift replies, pointing out everything that was wrong with your edits which you should have checked instead of relying on others, were not a reply to your unspecified question apparently. Please now get off my talk page. Discuss the template at the template talk page, and leave me alone otherwise. I have more interesting things to do than continuing this discussion. Fram (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to do as much, if you'll only stop reverting me. Otherwise you will just have to leave me a chance for redress, you can't be against something and be unwilling to "waste time" discussing it at the same time. PS: you can easily recover a page lost in an edit conflict by going back one page.--Nero the second (talk) 09:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Get of my talk page and stop sprouting nonsense. I have said over and over again that I am more than willing to discuss these changes, I haven't done anytning but. I have made one simple request, over and over again, which for some reason fails to get your attention apparently. I'll try it one more time: And please, please, continue this discussion at the template page, not here. Fram (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any answer to my questions there, you just copypasted a few old messages which I have answered already. So no, I am in fact still waiting for your reply. Despite that, judging from the loathing tone of your latest messages, I'm making more of an effort to remain calm and civil than you are.--Nero the second (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And despite all claims of the contrary, Fram still refuses to do anything other than revert. There's no trace of a genuine attempt at discussion on his side.--Nero the second (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No trace except this very discussion, of course, where the above (12:18) post is your first entry here. I have explained after your first attempt what was wrong with it, I have again explained after your second attempt what was still wrong with it, and I have asked you what benefit your proposed changes would actually bring for readers and editors. The best I have seen so far is that with much effort, you are able to reproduce all the info that was already there (minus one piece you don't find useful), although even now, if I compare [[2]] with e.g. Ghent, I notice that in your version the dates have another format than the body of the article, while the current template gives them in the same format as the body of the text. I also notice that the date is sometimes bolded, and sometimes isn't. Please tell me: after all that work you done on it, what benefit will the readers have from the changes? Fram (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

People please remain civil! I have to agree with Nero that the present infobox is not perfect, and could do with some improvement. That said, I think Nero was a bit too fast implementing his changes to the live version of the infobox. Now that it should be clear that there's some resistance against it, I think it's better to show the differences in a test environment like Template:Infobox German location/testcases, and discuss what's good and what should be improved about the new infobox. Since Infobox settlement is rather flexible, it's well possible that Fram's worries can be met. Markussep ^Talk 12:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's basically all I ask: show me that it does what the current infobox does, and that it brings some improvements. If it does, fine, but if it doesn't, it makes no sense replacing it. A change should be an improvement, not a change for the sake of it. Fram (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I made a testcases page: Template:Infobox Belgium Municipality/testcases. I think the belfry image is too big, but that's easily fixed. I like the flag and coat of arms images better in the new version. As you said, the males/females ratio is missing. I don't like the new date formats, not sure if we can change that. Markussep ^Talk 13:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A tfd about this template was closed as keep, but refactor to use a more common template as the backend.--Nero the second (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mind if we edit the infobox in your user space? I'd like to test some ideas, e.g. imagesize = 250x200px, and a switch that uses the NIS code to determine region, community and province. Markussep ^Talk 11:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You can create the sandbox, every template should have one. Can I just point out that I feel that giving the number of "foreigners" such a prominent position in articles is in really poor taste?--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, I personally consider the ethnical makeup given in every article on a US locality in much poorer taste. Fram (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've copied the new version from Nero's user page to the sandbox, and implemented some changes. Personally, I don't see the need for the detailed statistics (foreigners, male/female, age distribution, average income, unemployment rate). Markussep ^Talk 13:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, those trivial figures are best left out of the new template.--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If we are removing info from the template for being trivial, what about the area code? It's hardly necessary or relevant to know immediately that some village lies in the telephone zone 03 or 051, certainly since these codes are integrated in the telephone numbers anyway (so it's not as if you need to know them anymore), and because most people use cellphones today... Fram (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Area codes are not as important as they used to be, but still I think that they are more of use to the average reader than the number of old people or the unemployed 5 years ago. Or the number of "darkies".--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So, how do we go about with this? We notify WP Belgium and vote to decide which version is better? --Ultimate Destiny (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess that's the way to go. I made some minor modifications on the collapsible province map after your last edits. I'm not sure whether Nero wants to comment on what we did to the infobox? Markussep ^Talk 21:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We need to think of a solution for places linking to the infobox that aren't municipalities. See for instance Wilrijk, Vlezenbeek, Jambes. The infobox isn't meant for those, so we can either convert them to Infobox settlement directly, adapt the new infobox for them, or make a dedicated wrapper. I'm leaning towards the latter. Markussep ^Talk 11:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC). Created {{Infobox Belgium settlement}}. Markussep ^Talk 14:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Another proposal: can we hide those seemingly random statistics about the population and economy, at least until they are updated?--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Which ones exactly? Fram (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The ones which haven't been updated for 5 years or more.--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If no-one is against it I will be hiding them soon.--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Five years old isn't that old for population statistics, many countries only update such data every ten years. I can understand that the unemployment rate of a few years back may be considered outdated, but even there it gives a good indication. The percentage of foreigners is less volatile, and being five years old is not a reason to hide it. Fram (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Native name

Name is the most important part of a settlement template. So why is there in this "belgian municipality" template no working (visible) native name or other name tag? And no, adding the native name in the space reserved for the english name is faulty because then that native name gets automatically duplicated everywhere that the English version appears (which cannot happen as that is redundant on English wikipedia) -Loginnigol (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

should be easy to fix, I will look into it. Frietjes (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

added, but there is also |namefr=, |namede=, and |namenl= for more than one native_name. Frietjes (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Why are those options not displayed at the template page then? How are we readers/editers supposed to know otherwise? All I saw here a couple of days ago was "Name =". That was it - until I added those two things under it. I don't think it's a good idea to hide working options from the template instruction page, least of all because it confuses people. I thought a manual page is supposed to show every option available anyway? Cuz once I didn't see anything, I concluded there was no option, and so did everyone else editing the various article pages. But now it's solved so thanks anyway. -Loginnigol (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just include one parameter where all of the (relevant) alternate names are included? Of course the native name should take precedence. Oreo Priest ^talk 20:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

population

Where do the population numbers come from? as well as the reference for that? The reference

http://statbel.fgov.be/fr/binaries/3_Population_de_droit_au_1_janvier%2C_par_commune%2C_par_sexe_2011_2012_G_tcm326-194205.xls

is bad and I am trying to work on it to fix it. Pointers and info would be appreciated. speednat (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

see Template:Metadata Population BE. Frietjes (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You can find a valid link to the excel file here. Markussep ^Talk 12:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I updated the link in the Metadata Population BE template to reflect the correct link. tested and looks good.speednat (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Foy, Belgium returns a population error. Thanks.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

image size

This template needs better support for images. See Liège. Jonesey95? MB 14:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I added |imagesize=, leaving the default value if it is not specified. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

No population figures up for Aalter

It's definitively in the statistics page, but nothing shows. There is also a similar problem with the former municipalities who have to completely redesigned to Infobox settlement, because all data is lost after the merger.KittenKlub (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the same problem with former municipalities applies to the Dutch pages. (Long live wikidata!) KittenKlub (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)