Template talk:Infobox Australian Place
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Infobox Australian Place is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. |
| NA | This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale. |
| NA | This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale. |
|
|
|
 |
This non-article page is supported by WikiProject Australian places. |
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cities on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. | |
| NA | This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale. | |
 |
To-do list for Template:Infobox Australian Place: | edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|---|
|
||
|
|
| Adelaide South Australia |
|
 |
|
| Population: • Density: |
1,124,315 (5th) 615/km² |
| Area: | 1,826.9 km² |
| Time zone:
• Summer (DST) |
ACST (UTC+9:30) |
| Elizabeth Adelaide, South Australia |
|||||||||||||
  |
|||||||||||||
| Population: | 811 (2001)[1] | ||||||||||||
| Established: | 1955 | ||||||||||||
| Postcode: | 5112 | ||||||||||||
| Property Value: | AUD $160,000 | ||||||||||||
| LGA: | City of Playford | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
| Mount Barker South Australia |
|||||||
 Mt Barker summit, from Mount Lofty |
|||||||
| Population: | 9,073 | ||||||
| Established: | 1834 | ||||||
| Postcode: | 5251 | ||||||
| Location: | 40 km from Adelaide | ||||||
| LGA: | Mount Barker DC | ||||||
| State District: | Kavel, Heysen | ||||||
| Federal Division: | Mayo | ||||||
|
|||||||
| Adelaide Hills Council South Australia |
|
 |
|
| Population: • Density: |
36,629 46/km² |
| Established: | 1997 |
| Area: | 795.08 km² |
| Mayor: | Bill Cooksley |
| Council Seat: | Woodside |
| Region: | Adelaide Hills, Metropolitan Adelaide |
| State District: | Morialta, Kavel, Schubert |
| Federal Division: | Mayo, Sturt, Wakefield |
 |
|
Contents |
[edit] Infoboxes to be replaced by this template
[edit] All manual (non-template) infoboxes
-
- Start with Geelong and Central Coast. By my count most articles there had one. Orderinchaos78 04:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I found a fair few Adelaide suburbs with manual infoboxes as well like Sheidow Park. Does anyone know if there is a query or search than can be used to find these manual infoboxes within Aussie place articles? Or is the only way by eyeballing every article? ◄§ĉҺɑʀκs► 06:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Try scrolling through this list. I used 'suburb' and 'infobox' as a search term. Anything that looks irregular - like the St Albans Park, Victoria in the list is a candidate. Happy Hunting! SauliH 07:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- this search is better as it looks explicitly for class="infobox" --TheJosh 07:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Try scrolling through this list. I used 'suburb' and 'infobox' as a search term. Anything that looks irregular - like the St Albans Park, Victoria in the list is a candidate. Happy Hunting! SauliH 07:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I found a fair few Adelaide suburbs with manual infoboxes as well like Sheidow Park. Does anyone know if there is a query or search than can be used to find these manual infoboxes within Aussie place articles? Or is the only way by eyeballing every article? ◄§ĉҺɑʀκs► 06:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Start with Geelong and Central Coast. By my count most articles there had one. Orderinchaos78 04:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Some articles with manual infoboxes
These pages also need converting, and some will need research to be filled in. Many are simply locator maps in a box.
-
- Don't worry too much about the Melbourne ones -
I'm replacing all of them. It was easier to do a mass data collection exercise and generate 400+ sets of infobox and geocoords from an Access database. I wouldn't mind help sharing the load in actually adding them and removing the old ones though once I'm done generating them (later today) - they'll just be text files, I can zip them up and whack them on the web somewhere. I might do Geelong afterwards. (I have to get a lot of the data *anyway* for a political project I'm doing, so thought I might as well turn it to the benefit of the almighty Wiki :)) Orderinchaos78 21:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)- This task was completed today. As a result Melbourne has the peculiar distinction of being the only city to be fully compliant with our new infobox standard! Orderinchaos78 15:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I made a spreadsheet recently with the remaining manual infoboxes, but have yet to find the time to fill it in :) Will do so sometime this week so we can end the conversion phase of the project. Orderinchaos78 12:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry too much about the Melbourne ones -
[edit] Lake Macquarie infobox
Suburbs of Lake Macquarie, such as Buttaba, New South Wales have a different infobox. Is this a concern?--Grahamec 01:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is a concern and is an example of "manual" infoboxes being used in some Australian place articles. As per the to-do list, all manual infoboxes, such as the one you have found, should be converted to this template. There is a list of articles with manual infoboxes above on this talk page. ◄§ĉҺɑʀκs► 02:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A problem with Victoria
When someone uses this template with "state=Victoria", the template links to the Victoria disambiguation page rather than Victoria (Australia). I'm not a member of WikiProject Australia, so I don't feel it's my place to edit the template, since it might accidentally disrupt quite a few Australian articles — but I wanted to point it out. --Wayne Miller 15:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- It should be "state=vic", the template does actually convert that to the correct format. If they type in "Victoria" it treats it as an unrecognised piece of text and tries to automatically link it. Thanks for bringing it up. Orderinchaos78 16:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for the info. I'm fixing links to Victoria as part of WikiProject Disambiguation, and I expect I'll run into quite a few of these. I'll fix any I see. Thanks again. --Wayne Miller 20:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- No worries :) Good luck with that - if you have any further questions don't hesitate to ask (there's a lot of non-standard stuff out there :|) Orderinchaos78 00:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for the info. I'm fixing links to Victoria as part of WikiProject Disambiguation, and I expect I'll run into quite a few of these. I'll fix any I see. Thanks again. --Wayne Miller 20:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Establishment Dates
It seems to have become common practice to put each place in an Establishment Category eg. Category:1991 Establishments. Would it be possible for this to be done automatically or will it just be left manual? Todd661 10:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind, I just realised it was already done Todd661 10:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah those categories didn't exist as far as Australian articles were concerned prior to the creation of this template. Nice bit of coding indeed :) Orderinchaos78 05:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] % Australian born
Hi all, I notice that Municipality of Strathfield used to have the percentage of Australian born residences in it's infobox. This is now missing. It's a useful metric, could we get this included into this infobox? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- The austborn field was debated during the development of this box and the result was to remove it. [1] has some info on the discusion. --TheJosh 02:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is a useful metric but as with most, it probably belongs in the prose under a Demographics section (where significant minorities and other useful information can also be raised). Orderinchaos78 05:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting, but why is that? I can't see any justification for this... - Ta bu shi da yu 09:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- One major concern was the size and readability of the infobox - the LGA version of it is already quite large (indeed, larger than a screen on 1280x960 with most implementations) and indeed larger than many of the articles that support it. Orderinchaos78 09:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting, but why is that? I can't see any justification for this... - Ta bu shi da yu 09:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] counties
Could we have counties as an optional field with a link back to Cadastral divisions of Australia? Perhaps also the parish of the county, or hundred for SA. These were widely used in the nineteenth century and are still on land titles & geneology records --Astrokey44 01:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cadastral units such as counties are so rarely used or referred to these days I can't see much relevance to articles on existing place names. They have some historical context which, when details are known, could just as easily be referred to in the text. —Moondyne 03:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's a bit of a weird one - in WA those counties were not used even in the 19th century. Instead we have (regions?) of some form like Swan, Cockburn Sound, Canning, Avon, Ninghan, Roe, Murray, Wellington, Sussex and Nelson to name a few - some do coincide with counties but most don't. Orderinchaos78 03:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Its interesting that Peel County for example is way out in the eastern wheatbelt (Image:Western Australia cadastral divisions.png). PSL thanks for the excellent cartography work by User:Astrokey44. —Moondyne 03:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yep and Marmion if you see it anywhere in GGs is not the coastal suburb but some place off in the desert somewhere. And agreed re Astrokey - very nice work on those! Orderinchaos78 03:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- dont thank me, thank the National Library for putting thousands of old maps online :) I still think given that wikipedia includes history, that the counties would be important, probably not so much for WA where they dont cover the whole state, but in the eastern states for instance they are on all the towns for Vic, NSW and Tas at the 1911 Britannica, see "WAGGA-WAGGA, a town of Wynyard county". --Astrokey44 13:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yep and Marmion if you see it anywhere in GGs is not the coastal suburb but some place off in the desert somewhere. And agreed re Astrokey - very nice work on those! Orderinchaos78 03:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Its interesting that Peel County for example is way out in the eastern wheatbelt (Image:Western Australia cadastral divisions.png). PSL thanks for the excellent cartography work by User:Astrokey44. —Moondyne 03:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how this is a useful parameter, remembering that the infobox is intended to summarise the most important facts of an article. --cj | talk 02:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well they are used on property titles --Astrokey44 02:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- The usage of counties in property titles from 1933 hardly constitutes them being an important fact. By including such parameters we are adding bloat which was the main thing we tried to avoid when we initially put this template together. The same goes for parishes and hundreds. I am not suggesting that these points are not interesting, I just feel they should be included in prose only. I suggest the fields should be removed. ◄§ĉҺɑʀκs► 10:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Parishes and counties are used on all property titles in NSW, Vic, Qld and Tas from 1788 up to today, I believe. The Geographical Names Board of New South Wales thinks they're important to include in their city/town information. --Astrokey44 11:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, they are still used, and it's great that Wikipedia has coverage on them. However, I do think that putting them in the infobox overstates their importance. JPD (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Their historic importance, and continued use makes them at least as important as the state electoral divisions. They would be useful in, say real estate, if someone looked up a suburb in Sydney and wanted to know which parish it is included in. this is just one link I found: Auburn council's faq includes the parish and county --Astrokey44 08:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, they are still used, and it's great that Wikipedia has coverage on them. However, I do think that putting them in the infobox overstates their importance. JPD (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Parishes and counties are used on all property titles in NSW, Vic, Qld and Tas from 1788 up to today, I believe. The Geographical Names Board of New South Wales thinks they're important to include in their city/town information. --Astrokey44 11:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- The usage of counties in property titles from 1933 hardly constitutes them being an important fact. By including such parameters we are adding bloat which was the main thing we tried to avoid when we initially put this template together. The same goes for parishes and hundreds. I am not suggesting that these points are not interesting, I just feel they should be included in prose only. I suggest the fields should be removed. ◄§ĉҺɑʀκs► 10:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
From my perspective - choose - either in the info box or in the prose - whatever the majority decide but don't just drop this great work. Counties and parishes are still used in property and industrial legal documents and they represent both a current and a historical fact which is most definitely encyclopedic.--VS talk 06:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've never heard of a county, parish or hundred being used in this way in Australia. It is certainly trivial. Maybe there should just be one section for subdivisions, and format it similar to the "Government" section of the box in Australia (in that the Queen, GG and PM are listed in separate rows, but its only a single section of the infobox? -- Chuq 07:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think they should definatley be included. They are an important historical record and as stated above, The Geographical Names Board considers them useful enough to include in their descriptions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.148.5.118 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Compromise proposal
- Can I ask that everyone have a quick look at Albury, New South Wales as it is a good example of where most of the possible items in an Info Box have been populated - including the county of Goulburn. To my mind this does not bloat the article space or the box - and it does link quickly and systematically to important data that both reflects historical and current facts. The alternate is indiscriminate inclusion as prose somewhere in an article. However that said, there is an inherent problem with Parishes because the fact is that many towns and cities can have one, two or more parishes within their boundary. I therefore propose a comprise - I suggest that Cities/Towns/Locations (other than suburbs) should be able to include only the County information in the info box whilst Suburbs should be able to include only the Parish information. This will mean that there is only one extra line in each Info Box. Could you please indicate your support or dissent to this suggestion please. Whilst it may be obvious - so as to declare my hand I Support the inclusion of information in this way. --VS talk 10:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- If it's consistently done that way (and assuming it's agreed they're kept), then we only need one field which we can call "county" in the script, but would display as "Parish" for suburbs and "County" for all others. We already do this for LGA as the ACT does not have LGAs, but districts, and we found a way to accommodate them. Orderinchaos78 10:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I can think of a couple exceptions where you might want to have both (a suburb for a town in more than one county, a small location not part of a larger town/city that fits entirely inside a parish), but with these you could include the extra info in the text of the article. --Astrokey44 11:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support: Whilst I still feel that these divisions are not notable enough to be included (even though they may be historically important), there is enough space to accomodate it as per VirtualSteve. Another point is that we could also use this infobox for county articles by adding county as a
typeparameter, similar to how town and lga are defined for example. ◄§ĉҺɑʀκs► 11:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC) - Oppose How often are counties of reasonable significance? Keep it simple, put it in prose. --TheJosh 11:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral I am neither for them nor against them - I think they could be valuable in some cases but the main argument against them is keeping the infobox as simple as possible. Orderinchaos78 13:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support as per Astrokey and VirtualSteve --Golden Wattle talk 19:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral they are not vital statistics. May have a "subdivisons" section like the "Government" section in the infobox at Australia, with "Federal division", "state division", "county" etc. listed where the Queen, PM and GG are listed in the Australia infobox. ie. in a single row, in a slightly smaller font, and slightly indented. -- Chuq 02:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose KISS.--cj | talk 02:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support, another interesting/useful tidbit of information, and it doesn't seem to clutter the article up at all. Lankiveil 11:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
- Comment It has been suggested that these are important as electorates and that sort of thing. I would say they are slightly less important, but not hugely. When the infobox already includes detail to the levels of electorates, the additional county/parish does not look particularly out of place, but when it doesn't (e.g. Sydney) it gives the impression that counties are much more important than they are. JPD (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] town - distance/direction
| Gladstone |
|
| Location: | |
Is it possible to display a direction properly with the distance#/location# parameters? Using near-dd seems overkill for country towns, but putting distances without a direction doesn't provide the full info either. See for example the box on Gladstone, South Australia which currently renders as:
- 211 km from north of Adelaide
- 38 km from east of Port Pirie
by putting the distance as part of the location# --Scott Davis Talk 22:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea, I think (and yes, the only country thing we use near-dd for in country areas is LGAs which clearly border other LGAs). From a readability point of view, best way to do would be to have a dir# and if it is filled out it reads (dir# of), if it's not it reads (from). From other coding in the script that would be doable (I'd prefer to see it as a single letter so as not to spill it vertically) What do others think? Orderinchaos78 05:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have coded the dir variable into the template. See the example in the infobox shown in this section above. For the Jamestown example no "
dir3" value has been entered, and therefore direction shows as "from". The dir variable is free text so more precise directions such as NE or SSW can be entered as well. ◄§ĉҺɑʀκs► 07:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have coded the dir variable into the template. See the example in the infobox shown in this section above. For the Jamestown example no "
[edit] Spurious links being created
Some recent changes to this template apparently are creating spurious links in the MediaWiki link database, which among other things are polluting WP:DPM. For example, any use of the template with the parameter "city=Perth" is showing up as a link to the disambiguation page Perth, even though it appears that some effort has been made to avoid this and to route links to the correct page Perth, Western Australia. See, for example, Hamersley, Western Australia—there is no visible link to Perth on this page, but it still ends up listed on Special:Whatlinkshere/Perth, along with dozens of other W.A. locality articles. A similar problem seems to exist with articles about ACT localities, which all create links to the disambiguation page Act, even though there is no visible link to Act on the pages. It would be appreciated if someone who is sufficiently familiar with the esoteric template techniques being used here could correct these problems. --Russ (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've replied on the user's talk page - I think this may be a MediaWiki bug, and have seen a specific instance of it elsewhere. Orderinchaos78 13:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Time zones
For the vast majority of cities, towns and suburbs, the time zone can be automatically calculated from the state variable. Would it be possible to automatically display the timezone, but ONLY in cases where "timezone" and "timezone-dst" are left blank - to allow for places such as Broken Hill, New South Wales and Eucla, Western Australia to "override" these defaults if needed? -- Chuq 00:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] State and Federal electorates
Hi, a suggestion/question.
I have noticed that all federal electorate articles are titled "Division of .."" and state electorate articles are titled "Electoral district of ...", seemingly without exception. When filling out the electorate sections of the info box, I add [[Division of Indi|Indi]] to get Indi to appear. Would it be possible (or desirable) to code the box so that I could simply type Indi and have Indi appear in the box with a link to the article? Cheers--Mattinbgn/ talk 08:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea actually. The only problem is all the ones we already have with the other form. Some of the problems we have are essentially to do with legacy stuff which predated the script and could probably do with being smartened up. Orderinchaos78 11:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New changes
I had to revert back to Scharks's last version as a number of key features had somehow gotten broken (most notably, suburb direction boxes had ceased to display). Please be careful to test any changes prior to making them "live" as this template appears on several thousand pages. Orderinchaos78 14:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
