Template talk:Infobox Australian Place

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Infobox Australian Place is within the scope of 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, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Template This article has been rated as template-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
NA This article has been rated as NA-importance on the priority scale.


See Also: Blank Infobox Template Page | Information Page | Discussion Page | Examples Page
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Core policies for this box

KISS
Keep this box as simple as possible.
Scope
Make sure you remember that this box is used on more than 4,500 pages, of 5 different types. Whatever you do needs to be applicable to a good number of those pages.
Discussion/Community
Its very important to discuss everything that's going to change. And before you suggest something, look in the archives, it may have been suggested before.


[edit] Minor change

Updated it - the convert templates actually go through about 11 rounds of calculations each, which is fine for a single use but was slowing IAP quite a bit and was bulking up the code. I substed it multiple times, removing optional variables along the way, and have replaced most instances of convert with the end result. As the display is exactly the same, few will notice. Orderinchaos 05:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I also changed {{PD km2 to mi2}} to a hard coded line. This should help if you were seeing a slowing. The "PD" template is much bigger than {{convert}}. —MJCdetroit (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that :) Yeah, the two things that slow things up a lot on Wiki seem to be multiple calculations/nested substs (mainly because there does seem to be a statutory length of time such page accesses take), or very large substs (for bandwidth reasons). Orderinchaos 05:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Migration to the new preprocessor

I have tested this template and it is fine with the new preprocessor --TheJosh (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. What's the new preprocessor? Orderinchaos 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The preprocessor is the code that does the template substitution and stuff like that. Also does headings I think (for the TOC). There were some changes to ParserFunctions. I found out about a notice on the watchlist page. --TheJosh (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photographic image for infobox

I'm probably covering old ground here (though I scanned through the discussion archives and couldn't find a confirmation), but why does the Australian Place infobox not have space for an image of the town / city in question in addition to the locator map? If it's good enough for New York City, London and Paris, how about Brisbane, Canberra and Sydney? The locator map is all very useful but it is a little dry to the outside observer! BrisbanePom (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean? The image= and imagesize= variables allow placement of an image (see Hamersley, Western Australia for an example) unless you mean something completely different to what I'm thinking (which is entirely possible. :)) On thinking more carefully I think you mean that for whatever reason someone's decided to use that field for a locator image. That'd be something that needs to be taken up on the pages concerned. Orderinchaos 08:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The OP refers to the use of a photo image and a map image, as is done for most location infoboxes, such as {{Infobox Settlement}} (eg. NYC, London, Paris as mentioned above), {{Infobox German Location}} (eg. Cologne, Frankfurt) or {{Infobox Indian Jurisdiction}} (eg. New Delhi, Mumbai). I proposed something similar a while ago but it didn't take off here - see User:52 Pickup/Drafts/Sydney for discussion - maybe it's worth going over this again? 52 Pickup (deal) 09:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This has already been proposed, and I think it was rejected. --TheJosh (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I think it would make the vertical height of the infobox too big personally. Orderinchaos 03:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I see the issue having looked at 52 Pickup's example (a couple of posts above). Is there any way we can consider adapting the layout so that the map isn't so large (it needn't be full size to identify where the city is). Other pages manage - e.g. take a look at Berlin; we could use two maps side by side; one for the country, one at state level. BrisbanePom (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Berlin is not a good example. The box used there is for states of Germany (Berlin is one of 3 city-states in Germany). And the double image used in the Berlin box is the result of a particularly beligerent editor who made up that single image specifically for that article. The German state and town boxes are similar (since i made both of them), but the location map could be reduced for the town boxes (eg. Cologne, Frankfurt, Munich, etc.) since Germany is not as wide as it is tall and most locations have a coat of arms - but neither of these apply to Australia. What really makes the Australian infobox big is the font size and spacing, which could both be reduced. The test box that is on my Sydney page was just a rough adaptation of Infobox Settlement. - 52 Pickup (deal) 08:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate nearby suburbs

Is there any established guide on duplicate entries for nearby suburbs? For example, have a look at Netley, South Australia. Having some suburbs listed twice or more looks unprofessional in my opinion. I think the previous edit where the duplicates are left as blank looks far cleaner. Thoughts? --AtD (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I agree with you, but others (note: no consensus has ever been obtained one way or another on this, just going from editing patterns) seem to disagree. I think for example if a small suburb has a large one to the west of it, it's only necessary to fill the west field and not northwest and southwest, as that's implied by the positioning. Orderinchaos 07:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the main objective should be to be as accurate as possible, even if it looks a little unprofessional. To me the older edit of Netley implies that both Adelaide Airport and North Plympton are to the southwest, Adelaide Airport and West Richmond are to the northwest and Marleston and North Plympton are to the southeast. According to my UBD maps this is not the case and the newer edit is more accurate, although it shows North Plympton also to the east of the bulk of Netley. Although I prefer to list the suburbs in every direction, I think a situation such as Netley and as suggested by Orderinchaos requires filling in at least the directions of the "start" and "end" of the suburb, which would give you the first box on this page for Netley.
Not filling in every direction or filling in just the central direction of an adjoining suburb, which is what I think Orderinchaos is suggesting, could easily lead you to something like second box on the page which is really confusing. The actual way in which Merewether Heights is surrounded is shown in the third box. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the argument of accuracy is a moot point considering there's only 8 possible points to show the surrounds. It's going to be in the minority of cases, such as grid areas like Adelaide, where it can be displayed in a way that reflects reality with the square set up we have now. --AtD (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Even with "only" 8 directions you can still make it fairly accurately reflect reality. My whole LGA consists of weirdly shaped suburbs and I've had no problems. Even really weirdly shaped suburbs like Newcastle, which is surrounded by 10 different suburbs and touches the ocean in two different directions either side of one of the suburbs, can be made to work without looking too cluttered. (see the fourth box on this page) --AussieLegend (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, that looks quite cluttered. For example, the bottom line reads "West, Cooks Hill Hill, Tasman Sea", and the left column has "Newcastle West" then "Newcastle West" again without any noticeable gap. The way the suburb names wrap around also makes it difficult to read at a glance. --AtD (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Your mistake is reading across the page. You should be reading what's at each compass point. It's no different to reading the captions under the images on your user page. It also makes it more clear if you position your mouse over each name. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
FTR I think you and I have much the same idea on this :) I tend to be a bit less disciplined with it though, although approach it with the same basic idea of representing what's actually there without too much clutter. Orderinchaos 14:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point, it's not intuitive. --AtD (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's not intuitive. If you look north to see what's there, you don't look to the northwest and north east as well and say that whatever is at those locations is also north do you? Why would you do any different in a box that is showing what's in 8 different compass directions. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess we agree to disagree, then. I think someone with limited computer literacy may find it difficult to read. --AtD (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Computer literacy has nothing to do it but you're close. People who can't read a compass might have troubles. Until such times as compasses are redesigned I think we're stuck with the current method. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That or they use radial pixels to display data on computers instead of square ones. Orderinchaos 14:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I used to work on a radar system that used to do something very similar to that. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the important part is the vibe of the box. Personally I prefer the current Netley, South Australia with large suburbs listed in multiple areas, although I think the 2 suburbs to one area is a bit over the top, and in situations like that I usually put in the biggest one (according to the map), except of course if there is a smaller suburb there and the big one is already listed somewhere else (for example Littlehampton, South Australia, where Mount Barker is in east, I would probably put Nairne there even though its smaller, because mount barker is already listed) I think that way gives a good happy median between showing all detail, and not showing enough detail. I think not showing a suburb because its already in 1 of the sections (aka the old Netly listed above) is a bit dumb because there are areas such as Mount Barker, South Australia where there in fact isn't a 'suburb' (town) there, just scrub. --TheJosh (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect area format in metric

The area format is correct in imperial measurements that of square miles, but incorrect in metric as it is shown as Km2. It should be square Km as per the format of the imperial measurement.

Here's why. 4 Km2 is 4 x 4 (ie squared) to give a total of 16 square Km. Where as 4 square Km is the total area without any modification. Square x is a total measurement of the area. Where as x2 is a measurement of one side (as if all sides were of equal length).

It seems that more and more people don't realise there is a difference. It is possible that the confusion is due to a square metre covering the same area as a metre square (1m2 = 1 x 1 = 1 = 1 sq m), but beyond 1 the difference gets greater and greater. If I ask for 4 m2 of carpet to carpet a room, I don't want four one metre squres (which is 4 square metres) but 16 one metre squares of carpet.

The reference in the template is not appropriate. First, it doesn't link to anything specifying the measurement unit. Second the abs is a statistics organisation not a standards organisation and they can get it wrong just as well as anyone else. If I can find a reliable reference from a standards organisation I will post it here.

While there is a certain logic to making the distinction between 4 square kilometres and 4 kilometres all squared in the way you suggest, the fact is that the usual convention is that "km2" means exactly the same thing as "square kilometre" and 4km all quared would have to be written something like (4km)2, just as in algebra, where (ab)^2=a^2b^2\neq ab^2. You can see this for m2 at the site of the site of the Bureau International des Poids et Measures, which is the International System of Units maintenance agency. JPD (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, km² is a unit. We're not saying 4 km x 4 km, we're saying 4 km² (as in 4 instances of 1km x 1km). Same as cubic area volume would be m³, etc. Orderinchaos 02:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You mean volume? ;-) JPD (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Too right. This is what I get for making edits at 11am on a Sunday morning. :P Orderinchaos 03:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It's 11 pm on Saturday in Detroit...good God I should be at the bar. But I degas...
The IP user is confused by the km² symbol itself. Maybe this user thinks it should be sq km instead. It was decided long ago in the MOS to use the most common forms of symbols/abbreviations for metric and imperial measurements. That is why the superscript symbols (km², m³) are used for metric measurements and the traditional abbreviation method (sq mi, cu ft) are used for imperial. In other words, the current "format" that you see—100 km² (39 sq mi)—is correct. —MJCdetroit (yak) 03:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dist# parameter, distances

I realise that this has been raised before, but I keep bumping into problems with the convention on distances between localities (of whatever size or name). The latest is Lismore. I don't know where or how the 860 km was sourced. Who would know? Great-circle distance is about 592 km. [1] Google Maps via roads is 737 km. Using road distances is problematic because:

  1. Which road was taken? (must always be via Aunt Betty's house?)
  2. They are not easily verifiable. (If it were, the 123km error above would probably not have occurred and persisted)

The Lismore article has the distance information in the geography section. Roads are not geographic features. Driving is not a geographic tool. It smacks of WP:OR. In the Geography section I would expect great circle distances to be given first. If relevant, road distance, with accompanying route can be given if his information is interesting, noteworthy and verifiable (preferably easily verifiable). Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a touring guide or a road atlas. If you want road distances use those sources first, not Wikipedia. Great circle distances are easy to verify and don't require a route description and justification (because Aunt Betty makes lovely scones). I don't want to drive to most of the locations listed in Wikipedia, I just want to know roughly how far (shortest distance) something is from some relevant and notable locations, such as nearby towns or cities and state capitals. Not how far is to drive there (unless it is relevant). The first thing I think of when I see distances in an infobox is "Yes, but which route was used?" which is counter-intuitive. Please, can we move toward something more authoritative, verifiable and encyclopaedic? Bleakcomb (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I get 764km for the distance using whereis, measuring from point to point using Pacific and Bruxner Highways. The shortest distance I can obtain from a road atlas is 746, but I note its own tables say 762. Orderinchaos 06:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Orderinchaos, do you see what I am talking about when I say that it is not easy to verify road distances. And you haven't come within a bull's roar of Google Maps at 737 km. Not that I am promoting one over the other. What I will say is that their use requires great caution. I would question how any of these sources would be regarded as reliable and repeatable. How do you know that they are? How does a reader know? Another thing that puzzles me is that how does this confusion meet the requirements of the infobox design of KISS? Bleakcomb (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe Google Maps is accurate on this one - I have encountered errors with their service before for Canadian locations, and that's a bit closer to home for them than we are. Quite simply, they have no means of checking. The fact a reasonably reputable road atlas and two other services, one built by the company that makes our phone directories and our biggest street directory company, have all settled on the same figure - which has happened for other locations as well - is not problematic for me. One may argue NPOV, but the actual distances do exist on the road, they are capable of being measured, therefore there is no problems. I think throwing the baby out with the bathwater is the wrong way to go here - the system we have has worked for most locations, and worked for years. The same arguments you're making could also be applied to population, or to area, or to any number of other fields in the infobox, but we have them and they work. Orderinchaos 10:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Distances were discussed during the development of the infobox and consensus was that distance by road was the appropriate measure to use. See Template talk:Infobox Australian Place/Archive 2#How should distances be measured? for details
I agree this is a little harder to verify but the encyclopaedia is written for humans (not birds) and humans tend to judge distances between places such as towns based on the distance they would have to travel to get there. This is not normally (or even usually) the "great circle" distance. I would support sticking with distance by road at this stage. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I fully realise that Wikipedia will be normally read by humans (some exceptions, however). I was going to say "what do birds have to do with the discussion" until Hesperian pipes in with the As The Cocky Flies tool. Sheesh. Just because a consensus was reached, it doesn't mean that the issue can't be reconsidered. I suggest that many, many readers will want to use the distance information to compare (Location X is further from Sydney than location Y for example) and to form mental maps of where locations are, not, repeat not to drive there. Road distances and all the uncertainty involved with them just adds complexity and confusion. Bleakcomb (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source for the distance by road from Penguin Island to Rottnest Island? But seriously, I can understand using road distances for towns, suburbs, localities and other infrastructural places, but for the distance between two geographic locations I strongly support the use of (geodetic) great circle distance. For that, you won't find a better source that the Geoscience Australia As The Cocky Flies tool. Hesperian 03:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
That makes total sense, although this infobox isn't used for features beyond towns, suburbs, cities and LGAs (although it does apply when those features are for example offshore, or in a very very remote location). If we were for instance to be looking at biodiversity or geology, the actual distance would be more important than distance by road. Orderinchaos 06:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, then this template is rather poorly named... but that doesn't excuse the ignorance of my comment; thankyou for breaking my stupidity to me so gently. Hesperian 11:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the obtuse name came out of being a product of the Australian Places wikiproject. I agree that it's a bit strange having a "places" template that doesn't cover natural features, islands, waterways and other things which could reasonably be scoped within it - but those things tend to be better covered by the generic templates we have for those which allow for much more detail. As far as I know the great majority of uses of this template are suburbs of cities, with towns coming a distant second. Orderinchaos 13:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, many readers will be concerned with scientific subjects such as biodiversity or geology. For these subjects you start in an encyclopaedia. They won't be interested in road distance. If you are concerned with road distance why are you looking in an encyclopaedia? Bleakcomb (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Bleakcomb, it is broadly accepted here that the information presented by an article should match the context of the topic. One wouldn't write about the geology of Perth, except to say that it is in the Perth Basin; one wouldn't write about the biogeography of Perth, except to say that it is within the Swan Coastal Plain; one wouldn't write about the floristics of Perth, except to say that it is within the Southwest Botanic Province. Once all these topics are hived off to more appropriate articles, we're left with an article that treats localities such as Perth as communities of people, together with the infrastructure that supports them. it is in this context that we must consider the question of how to represent distances. Hesperian 11:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The template instructions recommend a number of sources for distances. The first of these is travelmate.com.au. That's the one I use because it's usually fairly accurate and it addresses the problem of knowing which route was used as travelmate details the route taken. I've changed the Lismore article accordingly because I agree that the 860km figure definitely seems way out. I'm surprised nobody has changed it previously. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
AussieLegend, what supports your claim that travelmate.com.au is accurate? Also (different issue) Google Maps goes a different way to Lismore (shorter route). Bleakcomb (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have said 'seems' instead of 'usually'. Since becoming aware of travelmate I've made a number of trips and have compared the travelmate calculations against GPS calculated and GPS measured distances (using two different GPS systems), 1:100000 and 1:25000 maps as well as the odometer of my car. All are always fairly close to each other so I have confidence in them. I haven't found the same with Google. It can be a few km out compared to all those other references so I trust it less. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We should consider whether we are carrying some biases and whether those biases are influencing this issue. If we are car drivers we should remember that many, many readers aren't and won't give toss about roads or driving between locations. It won't enter their minds. The other bias might relate to locality. If we are from Australia or, in the Lismore example, from NSW or the Northern Rivers or even Lismore we may know the locations and the roads connecting them and have travelled them. For declaration of interests, I fit into some those descriptors too. Many, many readers don't know the roads, haven't travelled them and will never travel them. I suspect the great majority of readers will be in this category. We should step outside our experience and biases WP:NPOV and consider what are the most important, relevant and easily verifiable things that should be included first in this ENCYCLOPEDIA for every reader, not just ourselves. Bleakcomb (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The direct distance approach creates great problems though in linking places that have no mutual community of interest, such as to give one example Wagga Wagga and Canberra. That's not NPOV, that's just introducing error and false assumptions for our readers. That was the major reason for the earlier consensus, and why I believe it should continue to stand. The politics and sociology of communities revolves around separation and distance, and our articles on places predominantly focus on such aspects. There are cases for both approaches, but unless people are able to or intend to travel by air between locations, the great-circle distance between them is absolutely irrelevant. Orderinchaos 06:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Orderinchaos, I really don't understand what you mean by "no mutual community of interest". How does the shortest distance between two locations create "great problems"? How is it "introducing error and false assumptions for our readers"? I agree separation and distance are important demographic and sociological issues in understanding much of settlement in Australia. Yes, there should be more information written in articles on WP in general and in relation to specific communities and regions regarding the tyranny of distance. But is this what a KISS infobox is meant to address first? Firstly articles and the infobox should address a simple, comparable, easily verifiable, unbiased specification of location if it is to address location at all. By all means the article may then address any and all issues that are noteworthy and verifiable regarding its road distance from another location. (I am thinking that there won't be many topics where the specification of road distance is essential. I don't think there are any in the Lismore example). But there should also be balance. There is other information to be presented than "issues". There is just "what is the shortest distance between this location and that related or important location?". Really simple, straight-forward yet relevant stuff. Where do I find this information about most Australian location articles in WP? Bleakcomb (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
And the big question - why would anyone want to know? It's not exactly what one expects from an encyclopaedia - people with unusual and specific interests can easily go and look at a site such as ga.gov.au for that information. The ideological arguments about direct distance can be waged in the article text if people so desire, that's not the purpose of an infobox. The example TheJosh cites below is another perfect example where the distance would provide misleading information to readers - 50km could be a suburb, but because the entire distance is water the two have nothing to do with each other and the 300km+ distance is far more relevant. Orderinchaos 10:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What about using 'by-road' distances for close distances, say to the closest major city, and as the crow flies for larger distances, such as from one major city to another. In some cases, you may want to list both. For example, Edithburgh, South Australia is 50 km west of Adelaide, but 300 km from Adelaide by road, so both are listed, one with a direction and the other without. --TheJosh (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Establishment category

Can it be made so that the article is put in [[Category:xxxx establishments]], instead of [[Category:Settlements established in xxxx]], if the type is "lga"? LGAs were created after the area they govern was already settled. --Ptcamn (talk) 07:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Y Done 52 Pickup (deal) 08:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox map

So, I've been off for a bit, but I think I might have a desire to clean-up a few of our city articles. Before I attempt to do so, I notice standards seem to have changed (or in some case slipped) since the middle of last year. One thing I want to check on is whether we're all quite content for the maps to remain exiled from capital city infoboxes in place of skyline photography? I noticed the discussion above, but it doesn't seem like any consensus has been reached on the matter?--cj | talk 16:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No real opinion on the subject, as long as they remain generally exiled from suburb articles :) Orderinchaos 17:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Maps may be alright for cities, but stick to photos for everything else. --TheJosh (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)