Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This template was for deletion on February 21, 2007. The result of the discussion was a keep.

For discussions about the use of maps in this infobox, post April 11, 2007, please refer to this map-specific sub-page.

To-do list for Template:Infobox UK place/Archive 4:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do:

Contents 1 Archived talk 2 Twinning 3 Odd templates 4 traditional historic counties 5 New Westminster constituencies 6 Ugly template 7 Scotland 8 Suburbs / Parishes / Islands 9 Static image caption problem 10 OS map references 11 Northern Ireland infobox map change proposal 12 Country 13 Emergency services error 14 Question about map 15 Question about Ambulance Services anomaly 16 Area 17 Automating map_type 18 Google Earth compatibility: geotags are invisible 19 Coordinates 20 Map images 21 Documentation? 22 UK Local Government District infobox 23 Conversion Templates that can be used within the infobox 24 Somerset 25 West Kirby 26 Whitespace 27 Using this template with Template:Infobox_World_Heritage_Site 28 Incorrect Ambulance Services 29 New Gloucestershire map 29.1 New Hampshire map (not New Hampshire!) 29.2 New North Yorks map 29.3 Yet more maps 30 Division splits

Archived talk

• /Archive 1 - includes all discussions during the development of this template.
• /Archive 2 - includes mostly discussions during roll-out of England/London.
• /Archive 3 - includes roll out for Scotland and a debate about the use of flags.

Twinning

As many UK places are twinned with other worldwide destinations, how about an optional "Twinned With" field, that links to the Wikipedia page for the twin town(s)? Mittfh 16:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Any other views? –MDCollins (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It is almost always the local government district or other authority, not the locality that is twinned. MRSC • Talk 09:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No its not. There's a huge bureaucracy out there involved in twinning towns and villages across the country. Unfortunately there is no real way to verify such information if it is added unless it is listed on a town/borough/village website Frelke 06:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Doing a quick web search for some towns I know are twinned reveals three possible sources: local government website, local newspaper archives, and possibly the website of the twinning association. After reading No original research, a photograph of a town entrance/gateway sign mentioning "Twinned With Town X, Country Y" might also count. Evidently, the links would have to be manually applied, as unlike the coordinates / postcode / phone code, there is no unified/central source applicable to all towns. In the light of this, it's probably best to wait for more requests for this feature, and feedback on its feasability, before deciding whether to add it to the template. Mittfh 16:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Odd templates

I've noticed that User:Stavros1 has been adding some non-standard templates to several articles such as Staverton, Northamptonshire. They are all very well but I thought we were surposed to be standardising. G-Man * 23:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and I'd say they're not all very well. For a start they use an old format no longer supported by the guidelines, and contain information that IMO doesn't belong in the box. The point of standardising with this one template was to prevent infoboxes getting bloated with information that should be in prose.

Which is why I changed the infobox a few days ago. One user seems a bit attached to it though, and is making quite a fuss and refusing to take the issue to this page. I suggest we standardise all infoboxes to this one unless a case for using something different can be succesfully made on a case-by-case basis. Any comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steinsky (talk • contribs).

Agreed that we should use this standardised template. That was the whole point of this surely? --Regan123 21:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

traditional historic counties

About a month ago the Infobox England place was replaced by this standardised UK one on Askam and Ireleth, is it possible to add a traditional/historic county field which we used to fill with '|Traditional= Lancashire
(North of the Sands)', as it was useful to point out the difference of old/current administrative county and to avoid 'Real Lancashire' debates? Kijog 15:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There was an overwhelming consensus formed not to include the former counties in the infobox. The full debate is listed in the archives. Jhamez84 00:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As and when the right time comes to review the debate, I would be in favour of adding traditional/historic county fields (at least for English places). Greenshed 23:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

New Westminster constituencies

There are significant boundary changes that have been announced but do not come into effect until the next general election. I've noticed the odd article where this has been updated to show "old" and "new" using the existing fields, but not in a consistent manner. Is there any desire to provide a more robust solution or direction for this? MRSC • Talk 15:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that we shouldn't show them until there is a Parliamentary prorogation but that seems to be a minority view. Should we add a future constituency field? The problem is that we are making the infobox larger and larger again, which was one of the original purposes of this infobox. Regan123 19:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugly template

Can something be done about the ugliness of the top of these templates. Particularly in Scottish places, where often two languages follow below the main article name, it looks terribly cluttered and the main name indistinct. Enlarging the main name, or introducing more space between it and the Gaelic and Lowland Scots names, might help, but I ask someone with more knowledge of this overly-complicated template to try and implement this. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. MRSC • Talk 20:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? Look at the Edinburgh page and tell me that doesn't look ugly and cluttered? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks quite acceptable to me, too. The top lines could do with a bit more leading/line-spacing, perhaps, but they're quite readable on screen. Are you using an unusual browser? — mholland (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Firefox, latest edition. On the edinburgh example, Edinburgh is on top with no space of Dùn Èideann, and Dùn Èideann covers the top quarter of the Lowland Scots names below. Moreover, the alternative names, being bolded as hyperlinks appear more prominent than the name at the top. It's very ugly on my browser indeed. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(general comment) Screen-shots of what you're seeing might help. Andy Mabbett 09:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox, latest edition, on Linux. I agree with mholland that, although a small bit of leading or line-spacing could be beneficial, it is not as cluttered as Deacon of Pndapetzim is describing is his view of it. Along with a screen shot, may be you could give us an idea of what fonts you are using, what then defaults and sizes are, and whether you are allowing sites to set their own font details (its in the preferences section of the preferences in my setup).  DDStretch  (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Having the names in other languages link to the language article is silly the old infobox was better as it included the other languages in small and had the language article in brackets --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 17:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't read it. Using Firefox on Windows 194.66.84.43 08:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I can read it using Firefox 2.0.0.3 and OSX but it is still ugly - 8 separate names with no immediate indication of why! A rather jumbled outcome of an inadequate template design (which would ideally indicate the language involved) and user silliness I fear. 4 Scots versions is well OTT. Ben MacDui (Talk) 15:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with putting the language in small before (or after) to identify which is which. Regan123 18:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added language identifiers so that it is clear which language is being shown. Regan123 18:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work - the guilty parties are now more obvious. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Scotland

I have completed the conversion of those templates now, bar one which has been reverted twice. I have therefore requested deletion. Regan123 01:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The map still hasn't been corrected. The red dots are in the wrong place - is anybody working on this? --Bill Reid | Talk 07:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

On which ones as when I compared them to the previous static ones they seemed quite similar. I may have transposed the longitude / latitude incorrectly on a couple which would show the dot in the wrong place as well. Point out the problematic ones and then I will look at them. Regan123 09:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Portree, Burghead are examples. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Burghead is too far north, but what is the issue with Portree. Could you also check out a couple more in the south / west so that we can see where the problem lies? Regan123 10:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Portree lies on the south eastern side of the Trotternish peninsula, not in Vaternish. It has been displaced to the north and the west by about 10 miles. Brodick is displaced to the north by a similar margin. Lamlash is displaced north by a lesser amount. Incidentally, these are the first four places I looked at. Inverness is displaced west. Kirkwall is wrong too - slightly north and west - that's six out of six. Hopefully some are correct! Ben MacDui (Talk) 11:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the map values on North. Do you think Burghead is now in the right place north/south wise? Pressing edit forces a proper reload of the map... I will start working on east/west. Regan123 11:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Right I think Portree is now in the right place, can you confirm? Regan123 11:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Inverness is also back where it should be I believe. Regan123 11:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. They all seem to be where they should be give or take a little bit. Do people agree? Regan123 11:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Portree and Inverness look OK - Burghead seems to be in the sea to my eye. Ben MacDui (Talk) 15:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not find this wholesale change very helpful. By the time I was aware of the change, it had already happened, and since the old Scottish Template had been deleted, I could not carry out a critical comparison with the previous version. As a occaisional editor of scottish places articles, the removal of certain information (specifically Historical Counties) saddens me. However those responsible for the UK template have deemed it appropriate to delete the Scottish Template without even highlighting the impending deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland. I will reluctantly live with this change. --Stewart 14:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Stewart a notification [was published] and there was a full TfD happened at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 18/Template:Infobox England place which was also put on the noticeboard.Regan123 18:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Reagan, the noticeboard was not informed of the deletion vote until I happened to stumble across it (going on quietly, advertised only to those who were thought likely to vote in its favor) and then informed it (see HERE). I made this point before, and was told something along the lines of we're under no obligation to inform Scottish wikipedians. Fair enough I suppose, but let's not change history. If that weren't bad enough though, for those of you who actually think it's bad, one of the proposal's proponents went and moved the vote page, cutting the edit history and breaking all links to the page, once again ensuring the proponents had an unfair advantage. I should note, though, that after half an hour of investigation, I found that said user had just pasted the text, and had not interfered with any votes. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Peterhead has joined the oil rigs in the middle of the North Sea --Bill Reid | Talk 14:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a puzzle as the rest seem fine. I will look into this, this evening. Regan123 18:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Reagan, can you please fix Scone; you've messed it up and put it at Fort Augustus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Had to delete the infobox; please restore it when you fix the map. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have entered correct coordinates from streetmap.co.uk which seem to have now put it in the right place. Can you confirm? Regan123 18:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Some of the coords were obviously wrong, so it is worth checking those first. PS Name is Regan, not Reagan :-) Regan123 19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

From memory I believe there was a problem with the actual image of Scotland; it was warped/twisted someway that calibration is impossible. Jhamez84 17:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it work by putting the same map onto a new document or adjusting the map width parameter in this template? Regan123 18:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It would only work if a new, true flat map of Scotland was created - though I know this is a popular map, so it's a case of swings and roundabouts I think here. Jhamez84 16:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the map still isn't working. Suggest that someone who knows any solution bring this up at Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board to get some sort of agreement on a map. This having coastal locations either moved inland or out into the sea isn't on. --19:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

UK Numberplates. There are several places where the numberplates are shown as Glasgow. I am highly sceptical that Newport-on-Tay, and Perth register vehicles in Glasgow. The Dundee office is more appropriate for these places.

Suburbs / Parishes / Islands

Having completed the transfer to this box on the England / Scotland / Wales articles do we want to look at Template:Infobox Newport electoral ward, Template:Infobox Newport parish & Template:UK Parish and either integrate them into this template or create a standard one. Can we use the suburbs switch here? Also we have Template:Infobox Scottish island which was implemented to cover the islands. Could or should this be merged? Regan123 10:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see any purpose in attempting such a merger. Template:Infobox Scottish island currently has twelve fields, of which only two, the OS grid reference and Local Authority area are the same as Infobox UK place. As far as I am aware none of the latter templates are used for Scottish islands, although some places on the islands do have UK place infoboxes about them. There is a perfectly clear distinction to be made between an inhabited place and an island. All told there are are about 800 Scottish islands, of which 90 are inhabited and 200 greater in size than 40 hectares. There are for example, over forty five sizable Orkney islands alone. Whilst I can see a purpose in using the Infobox Scottish island fields to indicate their relative sizes, populations, elevations etc. I can see very little point in an Infobox that repeats the same information about Lieutenancy areas, Sovereign states, dial codes, ambulances, parliamentary constituencies etc. etc. forty five times. Even assuming the red dot problem could be fixed (see above) the island maps are shaded areas not dots. The reason the template was created in the first place was because the then Scottish template was inadequate and the UK place is if anything less so. I can't think of anything useful that would be achieved by a merger. Ben MacDui (Talk) 11:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, it would be good if the info in the islands box not currently in the main infobox could be put in it and marked as being specifically for island use. There's no real difference between having the box cover an island or a place such as a region or shire (other than all that water around it). The Lewis article uses the UK place one as it has helped stop an edit war with the language entry. The other entries are useful too. MRM 13:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Lewis is not an island, which is why it does not need an island infobox. See Lewis with Harris. I am not sure I understand your intention. If you mean that the UK infobox could have additional fields only usable for islands, then all I can say is that you are not addressing the issues I raise above about maps and the absurd duplication of irrelevant information this would involve. Most islands have relatively small populations, and the median population of even inhabited ones is only about 100. It is only the small number of larger islands that have settlements big enough to merit a Place infobox. Nor do you indicate the advantage of such a merger other than standardisation for its own sake. IMHO there is a case for accepting that different situations require different solutions. Are you aware of any problems the existing island infobox has created? It seems completely non-controversial. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It would need to have some indication at the top of the box to indicate what type of entity you were viewing. Such as Civil Parish, Place, Island etc. so that it is not too confusing for readers. Keith D 13:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that UK Parish and the Newport Ward and Parish infoboxes should be amalgamated into this one, but, though I am keen on standardisation, I'm not sure if the Scottish Island infobox would merge effectively. What is used for Islands belonging to England, Wales and Northern Ireland? Jhamez84 13:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The larger English islands have UK Place infoboxes, but then they have populations of many tens of thousands. None of the smaller ones with populations of less than 5,000 seem to have any infobox that I can see. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Subsuming everything to do with an area of the UK into one huge mega infobox isn't needed. The red dot thingy is totally unsuitable for a small island in a small archipeligo; each island needs to be completely defined. Apart from the unsuitability of the UK place box, IMO it needs an overhaul as to its aesthetic qualities and could well take a leaf out of the Scottish island box. --Bill Reid | Talk 16:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a UK island infobox, drawing from the strengths of both the Scottish island and UK place infoboxes could be developed? I do agree with Bill and Ben (sorry) that this infobox really doesn't encompass the dynamics of small islands. Jhamez84 17:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless the mapping system can be removed/modified to suit the island situation, then to be honest, I don't see how it can be used. But what's the point with this - why do we have to have this all-encompassing megabox just to satisfy uniformity. Surely its possible to have several boxes that share a similar design but are designed for the particular topic grouping. --Bill Reid | Talk 19:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the templates mentioned above, I have found yet more! I make it that we have:

• Template:UK Parish (100 Transclusions)
• Template:Infobox Scottish island (46 Transclusions)
• Template:Infobox swansea electoral ward (36 Transclusions)
• Template:Infobox Newport electoral ward (20 Transclusions)
• Template:Infobox Newport parish (10 Transclusions)
• Template:Infobox Cardiff electoral ward (4 Transclusions)
• Template:Cornwallsettlement (2 Transclusions)
• Template:Infobox Cornish place with map (0 Transclusions)
• Template:Cornwallparish (0 Transclusions)

I think that this infobox would suffice if it were adapted for the islands. I find the island one lacks a lot of details, but the additional points from the island one (like highest mountains etc) could be useful for regional infoboxes as well as island ones. It makes sense to have a single template for everything, if we start with one exception then more will follow. But, I also agree with Bill Reid above that the island one is aesthetically nicer. Perhaps there could be an option to display section headers or not? Perhaps we should also have a heading somewhere to say that it's one of "Town, city, Scottish island, Welsh village, English hillock, East Kilbridan Molehill, etc"?MRM 18:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have posted the same notice on these templates talk pages as I did elsewhere. Regan123 18:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We also have {{UKWard}}, currently used for the wards of Sheffield. If it is agreed not to use this template for the wards, a combined ward infobox should be created. Warofdreams talk 02:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Are "Scottish Islands" legally and officially defined as such? Are they not British Islands, or, British Isles? I'm conscious of working out a few issues, also as to the use of flags (which I support, but a massive consensus exists otherwise) before we make any kind of decisions. I also agree that the infoboxes listed above (Newport, Cornish etc) should be converted and listed for deletion. Jhamez84 18:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

They were ceded to Scotland under the treaty of Perth in 1266 by Norway, which is a legal document. From then on, they were Scottish and entered the UK under the Act of Union. So, if any town, city or atom of Scotland can be called Scottish, the islands can be called Scottish. MRM 19:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to think all this interest is likely to lead to some useful editing of articles about Scottish islands. Question - why does it 'make sense to have a single template for everything'? What, in the context of writing good quality articles about Scottish islands, is the advantage - especially given that the very small number of active editors on this subject would not be able to amend or fix problems without specialist assistance? Other than promoting the UK place infobox itself I don't recall any of the voices so far raised in support of this (to me completely pointless discussion) undertaking any editing work in this arena. It would be very helpful to have a clear understanding of what the motivation is. Of the 200 plus Scottish islands of any size there are perhaps a dozen decent articles. Would anyone care for a prioritised action list? Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be, and indeed there's no reason to. The current Scottish island template is fine. I'd suggest to the users here that, if you've got so much time to burn, do something productive like create or improve articles. This page is beginning to attain the appearance of a self-important cabal, e.g. what is "before we make any kind of decisions" supposed to imply, Jhamez? This is just a talk page for a template; its de facto role as a forum for like-minded Britishising POV-pushers should be purely incidental. I'd also point out that the last vote for deletion scraped through barely, despite the canvassing and vote stacking and all the tricks that were pulled. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole purpose of this template was to integrate nearly identical templates to give a consistent look to Template:Infobox City. I asked the question as to whether or not another set of templates could or should be merged. Having read the above I don't think the island box should be merged. The others I think should be. Accusations of Britishising POV-pushing, cabal or vote stacking are neither pleasant nor accurate. Regan123 21:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I am relieved to hear that. In this at least the good Deacon is correct - this discussion is perhaps a useful pre-sorting of views, but also in danger of over-stepping the remit of a talk page. On the assumption that there is little appetite for annexing the Auld Scotia's isles, I will retreat to more familiar latitudes and resume the work of bringing their qualities to the attention of a world starved of wonder. If requested I shall be happy to assist in your discussions, but for now, au revoir. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As it is unused and obsolete, I have nominated Template:Infobox Cornish place with map for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Infobox_Cornish_place_with_map. I have left cornwall parish for now until consensus is achieved over parish articles. Pit-yacker 19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Some people have issues - I was just asking, critical thinking and all. Jhamez84 21:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just happened across this discussion, not realising there was a civil parish infobox, which I will certainly begin to start using if possible. As for lumping lots of things together into a general infobox, I do not see why there should be just one infobox that the end-editor directly uses. Indeed, the things that some are saying could be all subsumed under one infobox fall logically into quite different categories – Scottish islands, civil parishes (third tier level local government areas in England), and electoral wards (of an unspecified nature, as there are more than one kind of electoral ward). So, they cannot easily be said to be candidates for a single end-editor "generic" infobox, either as a whole, or even for any two of them taken together. Because if they were, they would be either so bland and simple as to be unnecessary, or else they would have to contain so many sets of alternatives that end-editors would have to grapple with as to make their use and implementation by common-or-garden end-editor too complicated. By all means, I can see why some kind of underlying "kernel" template could be constructed, but if it is, it might be better remaining hidden, with all the necessary customisations for the conceptually distinct areas of application (like the three I gave earlier) being realised as a number of "child infoboxes" which would be the ones edited and included in articles by the actual editors. Oh dear, I've probably not been simple enough in how I've written this, now.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think, particularly Template:Cornwallparish, a few have been subst: into the articles. E.g. look at Penzance, or Morvah. Might be worth asking at the Penwith Wikiproject where this template seems to be used most often. Richard B 08:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have posted a notice on the template about this discussion. Regan123 18:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A related question: what about articles that are about both a village and a parish of the same name? Is it appropriate to use both this template (for the village) and {{UK Parish}} for the parish? --Dr Greg 17:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps UK Place needs a "settlement type" field? The options could include parish, ward, hamlet, village, town, city, etc; and other headers and parameters could then then be displayed or hidden, depending on that value. Andy Mabbett 10:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The UK Parish infobox would, if we are to continue using it, benefit from an overhall. It's functionality is like that of the UK place infobox predecessors, with limited flexibility and large areas of white space. However, I personally think it should be merged into the UK place infobox - I haven't yet seen a strong use of the Parish infobox on Wikipedia. Jhamez84 13:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion about splitting parish articles up into village/parish for the sake of template harmonisation keeps coming up again and again (see archive)so I just going to paste my archived objections to this below

I made a set of infoboxes for parishes in Penwith a year or so back (see St Buryan). In this example there actually is population data for both the village and the parish which I think is useful to include, but it isn't always available for every parish. I would argue in this case that it isn't really a good idea to split the settlement article away from the parish as the two are so closely interlinked in terms of writing that it would lead to a lot of repitition between the two pages. I've also used the infobox as an opportunity to list what I've called secondary settlements in the parish. I don't think the UK place infobox covers either of these points Mammal4 17:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

and

Having written and researched extensively about St Buryan as well as other Cornish parishes, I would argue strongly against separating the village from the parish. The information about the two aspects, especially the history, as so closely interwoven that to separate them would create two smaller, average, articles with duplicated information, rather than one good article (which is what St Buryan is currently). Surely it would just make more sense to add a few optional fields to the place template?Mammal4 12:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

My main problem is really that splitting an article up in this way creates repititon on wikipedia as a lot of the information will have to be repeated on the two new pages in order to give context, and that rather than having one good quality, nice length article with all the information on the topic in one place, we would then have two shorter average articles on the topic which would then need to be crosslinked, with the possibility that an unfamiliar reader stumbling across one, failing to read the other. This seems a bit silly just for the sake of template harmonisation.Mammal4 14:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an issue that is currently occupying my thoughts. My feeling is that if the village is the only one within the civil parish, then one could simply use the UK place infobox. However, if there are other settlements within the same civil parish, then the issue becomes less clear. I can see that there is some merit in having a separate article about the civil parish, which would use some version of the UK parish template, in which case, the village name with "(civil parish)" added after it would seem to be an appropriate name for the civil parish article. However, if this is deemed a good idea, then some expansion of the civil parish infobox may be justified (with all fields being optional). If this were the case, some mention of whether the parish had a "parish council", a "parish meeting", or "nothing" would be appropriate, I would have thought, and the infobox might also be expanded to include some of the history of date of creation of the parish, etc. However, may be we need to try out a few options a bit more (like trying to have both infoboxes in the same article), which may highlight a few more issues.

One more issue -- where there is more than one village in a civil parish, we need to discuss what to do about the population figures, since, as far as I can see, such figures refer mostly to the civil parish in these instances and do not distinguish between the different settlements. This suggests to me that in these instances (others instances may differ), the population figures is more closely associated with the civil parish, and therefore should be bound more strongly with any "UK parish" infobox rather than the "UK place" box.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see arguements for and against the merging/seperation of the infoboxes, and don't have particularly strong views on it. However, I do think that the civil parish infobox is weak in terms of content and layout, and should use a style more like the place infobox at very least. Saddleworth is a civil parish article that works very well with the place infobox, and certainly wouldn't want it to use the parish infobox as seen elsewhere as we'd loose content and gain white space.

Another concern of mine is... are civil parishes not places? Jhamez84 16:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Civil parishes are not places, any more than counties or regions are places. A civil parish is a type of administrative unit, and may encompass one 'place' (city/town/village/hamlet), several, or even in some cases, none. There is a degree of overlap between parishes and towns/villages, but this is also the case for district councils. Mauls 03:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Per a small part of the discussion above, I've nominated Template:Cornwallsettlement for deletion as it is unused and superceded by this one. I'd welcome comments. I'll try to also nominate some of the other lesser used (or none-used) templates too soon. Jza84 15:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think little-used templates should be looked at carefully, and I agree that the parish infobox is poorly designed, hardly well-publicized, and so may well not be used very often. I do think some additional attention needs to be given to civil parihes somewhere, though. But I must ask questions about Mammal4's comment: "I would argue strongly against separating the village from the parish." This comment could suggest that he is thinking mostly about the "only one village in one civil parish" situation. So, first, I would like to ask him how many civil parishes in Cornwall have situations where there is more than one village in a civil parish? And how many cases are there where there is no village in a civil parish? Finally, in how many of these cases is the name of the civil parish different from the name of any of the villages contained within it? If Cornwall has many more cases where there is only one village in a civil parish than if there is more than one village, or no village at all, then I would suggest that the way of dealing with civil parishes for Cornwall cannot be easily and universally adopted for parts of the rest of the country (see Township (England)#History for a discussion of the "parish line" which is relevant here: although this research was concerned with mostly older ancient parishes, it is still, in my experience, seen today to a lesser extent. Today, above the "parish line" there seems to be a greater incidence of multi-settlement civil parishes than below the line, the distinction running partly through Cheshire, where Chester District tends to behave as if south of the line, with other districts of Cheshire tending to behave as if north of the line.) Of course, where it can be, it may probably be best to just merge articles about villages and civil parishes together, and this will mostly be easy when we have the "one village in one civil parish" situation, but in the other cases, this becomes increasingly strained, and some means of dealing with these cases is needed. In this instance, I'm coming round to thinking that something more like Andy Mabbett's suggestion of switches and optional fields is perhaps the way to go. However, I think we should not be deceived by the apparent choice of "place" in order to argue for some kind of equivalence of kind of thing being referred to here.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on being careful on nominating the templates - I'll only nominate those which won't likely (!) be contentious. The various Welsh ward and Cornish place ones are the ones that I view as superceded.

As for the parishes, I have noticed you've brought this up a number of times (each time raising the very real problem of parish vs place). I for one would welcome the use of a "switch system" to somehow fix this problem.

Thinking about my somewhat localised knowledge of civil parishes - Shaw and Crompton is a parish coterminus with one town, whilst Saddleworth is a just parish coterminus with no single town, but contains several villages; I think we'll need a system that perhaps can indicate this in someway. What do you think? Jza84 16:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Static image caption problem

The infobox image caption at the article Blyth, Northumberland seems to have jumped to the left of the image. It's only gone like that today, and the article hasn't been edited for a few days, so I don't think there's a problem with the page itself. Also, Newcastle upon Tyne appears to use the same infobox, but doesn't have this problem. If somebody who knows about these things could help sort this out, it'd be appreciated. Cheers. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's OK, the problem seems to be fixed now. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There was an OS coordinate display issue as well. They seemed to be linked. Regan123 19:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OS map references

On the OS map reference field on the infobox, a while ago when you clicked on it it took you to the same website as if you clicked on the grid reference, (like this) which was quite usefull as you could look up maps of the location.

Now it seems to have changed and takes you to some utterly useless website [1] which I cant make head or tale of. Why has this been done, and could it be changed back to the far more useful situation that existed before? G-Man * 19:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You should only get to see the "utterly useless website" if you supply an odd number of digits in the grid ref (which is an invalid grid ref). (And the message on the website explains this, perhaps not as clearly as it could.) Supply an even number and it works properly. --Dr Greg 17:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland infobox map change proposal

Can I bring to the attention of editors the use of the map in the UK infobox for Northern Ireland. I believe the existing one is of poor quality, and suggests the country in an island. The use of colour is also somewhat strange, at least to my tastes and sensibilities. Examples and comparisons (both the existing NI infobox - to the right, and the previous Ireland infobox to the left):

Lurgan An Lorgain
Location
WGS-84 (GPS) Coordinates: 54°26′28″N 6°21′22″W / 54.441, -6.356
Statistics
Province:	Ulster
County:	County Armagh
District:	Craigavon Borough
UK Parliament:	Upper Bann
European Parliament:	Northern Ireland
Dialling code:	028, +44 28
Post town:	Craigavon
Postal district(s):	BT64-67
Population (est)	24,000

Lurgan Irish: An Lorgain Lurgan shown within Northern Ireland Population 24,000 (est) Irish grid reference J080585  - Belfast 19 miles District Craigavon Borough County County Armagh Constituent country Northern Ireland Sovereign state United Kingdom Post town CRAIGAVON Postcode district BT64-67 Dialling code 028 38 Police Northern Ireland Fire Northern Ireland Ambulance Northern Ireland European Parliament Northern Ireland UK Parliament Upper Bann List of places: UK • Northern Ireland • Armagh Coordinates: 54°26′28″N 6°21′22″W / 54.441, -6.356

I would like to impliment the use of the following map (which is a free to use version):

I believe the current "map" is unsightly, unhelpful, poorly formatted, coloured and sized. Any comments, objections or suggestions? Jhamez84 17:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the the suggested map, rather then the other two.--padraig3uk 20:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I also like the new map. Warofdreams talk 01:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The green map should be replaced, as suggested. Please do it. Badagnani 18:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As above I prefer the new map as it doesnt incorrectly portray Northern Ireland as a place dissconnected from the Republic of Ireland. Pit-yacker 16:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason that Northern Ireland should be portrayed as specifically being connected to the Republic of Ireland? May I draw your attention to the example to the right - one of many, I'm sure, in Wikipedia.

The colours are the result of the image being a (rather large and detailed) satellite image, though the surrounding colour was chosen by me.

I would object to a change in the map. --Mal 23:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason that it should be portrayed as being connected to the Republic is because it IS connected to the Republic. N Ireland is not on its own in my belief that these "island" maps should be erradicated. I think the same should be applied to Scotland's (and Wales if the different political viewpoints ever allow a consistent mapping approach to be adopted across Wales - because of various disputes many articles go without maps, others are merely quite poor) maps for example.

IMHO, just because it is done on another map doesnt make it right or mean it should be encouraged. I feel the current Northern Ireland map is particularly misleading as the province is surrounded by blue, which is conventionally used to represent water - contrast this with the far from perfect Länder map you chose which at least colours the surroundings transparent. Pit-yacker 23:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reversing your own argument Pit-yacker, just because you believe maps in isolation are not right, doesn't make them actually not right, nor should they be discouraged. In fact, the fact that they do exist might suggest that they are right, and perhaps should be encouraged. Your rationale is therefore invalid.

The outline of Northern Ireland is already used extensively in various templates and articles throughout Wikipedia.

I do agree with you about the colour though: blue is definately traditionally used to represent water, and I could change that to transparent or a more neutral colour.

The project should be consistent throughout though. I notice the article on Aberdeen uses an isolated map of Scotland; the couple of English locations I just looked at use a UK shape; Aberystwyth, while it uses this template, doesn't use a map.. but includes an isolated map below the template.

So, until there is consensus regarding the complete standarisation, or a policy drawn up with regard to locations in (for example) England, (Greater) London, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and various islands with which there is reasonable consensus, I don't think the current map should be changed.

Just a quick note: by the look of the shape in the Dartmouth article, it looks as though the coordinates on that map need tweaking.

I believe there is much more to discuss regarding the usage of maps, shapes or diagrams that show a place's location in the template, before changes are made. --Mal 18:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Pit-yacker. Semiotically, the current map isn't helpful. The newer map provides better context. We have five votes to one on this (including my own nomination as a vote). I think we should go ahead with the change over.... Just to avoid confusion - I've since changed my ID name. Jza 15:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the current map is very helpful with regard to semiotics Jza - it's a physical representation of Northern Ireland, onto which the pegs are placed which show exactly where the places are in relation to geographical features. --Mal 18:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

How is the current image better, as for the relation to geograpical features, it shows Northern Ireland as an Island, and ignores that it is part of a larger island. The proposed map shows Northern Ireland in relation to the Irish Republic.--padraig3uk 19:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well we have one vote against this, I suggest we change over at least provisionally and see what feedback we get. Jza84 14:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the new map being proposed is much better than the old one which is confusing in its choice of colours/contrast as well as misleading in the choice of background colour. What is the status of the smaller regions marked out in this map? The reason I ask is just a tentative thought - Shouldn't we treat the Northern Island map as similar to the map of Great Britain in the sense that, eventually, there may be local maps made of each of the smaller regions marked within this map, just as there are more detailed local maps being set up for each county/metropolitan district on Great Britain? I appreciate that this may be a longer-term aim, but if that is the case, it makes the newer proposed map even more advantageous to use as soon as possible.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You make a valid point (the outlined regions are the districts of Northern Ireland) about the use of subdivisions. I did upload a version without the district borders but I thought it lost a strong aspect of context and reference framing. I was also keen on including these boundaries as they are present on the (right - pink) Ireland place infobox map.

I could look into creating maps for the counties of Northern Ireland yes, but I've pledged to complete rollout for England first. I think using the proposed version until then is useful. I'm also conscious that Northern Ireland as only one large city, and a population of 1,685,000, which is considerably less than some English counties, and so seperate county maps may not be wholly useful anyway. Jza84 16:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am in favour of the new map, but I suggest that the visible parts of the Republic of Ireland (i.e. outside the UK) should be in a different colour, compatible with Image:Uk outline map.png. This may help make it more acceptable. --Dr Greg 11:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, (pegged right). This version uses the exact pantones of the UK outline map, and should hopefully make this more acceptable to concerned parties. Jza84 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I find that version good.--padraig3uk 05:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to re-colour the tip of Kintyre back to the UK version though, but other than that, I'll ask our resident calibrator if he is able to bring the map to life with the pointer, and then amalgamate this into the infobox. If there's widespread objection (which I don't see likely), we can always work out another option. Jza84 12:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This map was carefully selected. Licensing was noted. Colors discussed. Sensibilities taken into account. Pantones checked. The coastline is rendered in fine detail. Rivers and bodies of water are present and correct. The map is harmonious in proportion, uses pastel shadings and soothing to the eye. It is a triumph of the cartographic art. Seven editors pored over it for a period of three weeks and pronounced their approval. And absolutely nobody noticed that the border between Belfast and North Down was missing. :-) Kind regards, Anameofmyveryown 22:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll fix it within 48 hours! My mistake - Columboism excused! I'll finish the map for North Yorkshire, and then re-upload a correct NI map! Thanks for spotting it! Jza84 22:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've tried to do maps myself for the 2007 United Kingdom floods, so I can appreciate how much hard work you have to put in. Kind regards, Anameofmyveryown 23:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Country

The "Constituent country" link points out to List of countries. However, England, Wales... are not listed in this page as countries. Could someone look into it? CG 15:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've provisionally changed the link to the Constituent country article. Jhamez84 00:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Emergency services error

There's a problem with the emergency services listings in the edinburgh article. should read:

Police         Lothian and Borders
Fire           Lothian and Borders
Ambulance      Scottish

...but doesn't. Any takers? — Jack · talk · 01:58, Wednesday, 20 June 2007

I think the problem is with the unitary_scotland parameter which is expecting [[City of Edinburgh council]] or [[City of Edinburgh|Edinburgh]] and not [[City of Edinburgh council|Edinburgh]] which is used at the moment.

Keith D 09:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Can it be fixed? I don't understand the complicated syntax... — Jack · talk · 18:05, Wednesday, 20 June 2007

I have added the additional option to use the piped version you have. This may take a bit of time to filter through, so you might want to purge your cache. If you follow my contributions you can see it is relatively easy to amend if you spot any other anomalies. Any queries, please ask. Regan123 18:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! — Jack · talk · 18:57, Wednesday, 20 June 2007

Question about map

Hi, we've struggled with making "red dot-on" maps for U.S. cities and towns but there are so many that the editors formerly doing this have given up with the remaining few thousand towns. I see that the code you're using automatically puts the dot on the map according to the coordinates placed in the box. Is there a way we could adapt this to U.S. state maps? Would whoever is knowledgeable about this please write to my user page? Many thanks, Badagnani 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This template just calls Template:Location map that does all the clever map stuff. A number of sub-templates are used. These are just defined by having a map and marking the longitude/latitude of the extremities see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Location_map_Greater_Manchester&action=edit as an exmaple. Pit-yacker 19:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about Ambulance Services anomaly

Re "Vale of White Horse and Hart districts only: ambulance_service (needs to be populated)" -- there's no indication of why this is required for these two districts, but Vale of White Horse has been covered by one ambulance service (South Central) since 2006. (See http://www.southcentralambulance.nhs.uk/ for details.) Janetmck 20:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 1#Ambulance update which explains the slightly odd split. If this has changed, then great and we can automate it now! Regan123 16:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Area

Is it possible to have a new optional field of area, please? TerriersFan 02:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

How would you determine the area of a town or village? Remember, these templates are not currently for wards or parishes. Warofdreams talk 15:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

On that logic, population_density should be disallowed too, as that can't be calculated without an area. (By the way, you can't measure population density in square miles. It should be (persons) per square mile. I've updated the documentation.) --Dr Greg 17:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. Is it actually used in any article? If we start implementing this infobox on articles about entities which cover a fixed area, then it would be useful, but at the moment, I can't think of any examples. Warofdreams talk 17:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Some articles do use population density (there's quite a few in Scotland, and Sale, Greater Manchester is one that also comes to mind). Population density is avaliable from output from the last census (via neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk), but usually at a ward level. Where warding is coterminus with a town, it's been added. Dr Greg makes a valid point about the per issue, which I for one rather stupidly overlooked! Jza84 18:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I added an "Area" section to the template. It is similar to how {{Infobox Settlement}} does area. Area can now be entered in either square miles, square kilometres or both. If an editor enters only square miles, then square kilometers will be calculated and displayed automatically. The reverse is also true of if only square kilometers are entered; square miles are calculated and displayed. Entering both fields will override the auto-conversion and what is entered is what is displayed (even if it has an error). I also added a footnotes field so that where the figures are coming from can be noted. I'd try to use a government source if possible but I had a hard time finding one for Edinburgh (my only example).

The new parameters are:

|area_footnotes= [1] |area_total_sq_mi= |area_total_km2 =

All values must be entered in a raw format, i.e. no commas or spaces—just the numbers (decimal point is ok). Otherwise an Expression error will result. The numbers will be formated automatically.

Regards, MJCdetroit 04:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good addition, however I would recommend removing the "|area_footnotes=" field, as this citation (and a duplicate of the infomation) should be in the actual text of the article - the infobox is just a quick "reference card", so to speak. Jza84 09:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It is there to provide reference to values provided. I could have put 101 sq mi or 99 sq mi or 264 km² in the Edinburgh infobox and noone would thought any different about it. In the Edinburgh article there is not any mention of the city's area within the article and I only added it to the infobox itself. Providing some type of reference for figures in the infobox in standard practice in most other infoboxes. It's just good to know where the facts are coming from and if the information is duplicated in the text of the article then that only makes the article that much better in my opinion. —MJCdetroit 14:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess, but then I'm conscious of drawing the line quite early about the use of citation in infoboxes for three specific reasons:

1. The infobox was designed with a budget of space in mind, and to minimise article-to-article inconsistencies.
2. To reduce the need to provide citation for every single entry in the infobox.
3. Many stub and start class articles seem to be written from the point of view that the infobox is the actual article, whilst it's the prose which would benefit from the additional text and citation.

I can live with this, and do think you raise very valid points, but just wanted to offer my opinion as to considering a counter option. Jza84 22:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Automating map_type

Having filled in a lot of map_type parameters, it's occurred to me that this field duplicates information already present elsewhere in the infobox. We could use the existing information to display a map, in the same manner as the police, fire and ambulance fields are displayed. We should keep the field so that "nomap" can be used, but in all cases where a map is required, we could find the appropriate national or county map automatically, or otherwise use the default UK map. Are there any objections to this idea? Warofdreams talk 17:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested this in the past also, and would very much welcome the idea. Jza84 17:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've been bold and implemented this. Maps are now generated using only the country, metropolitan_county, shire_county and unitary_england fields. I've conducted various tests, but please fix (or tell me to fix) any errors introduced. For the time being, "nomap" has no effect; this can be reintroduced soon. Warofdreams talk 03:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, You seem to have created a problem with Greater London (possibly others) in that for the map to generate, Greater London must be wikilinked. Most of the articles have this unlinked (e.g. Queen's Park), which may have been an oversight when the template was transcluded, so now no map displays at all. I've tried to fix this, for example in Harlesden, but this has now duplicated the services fields. Not sure if this problem was there before, but can you take a look? –MDCollins (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've now fixed this problem, and all maps for places in Greater London should display correctly. Warofdreams talk 14:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, is the plan to remove the user set maps/tag to ensure the correct map is auto generated? That way we can ensure they are generated correctly. What you have implemented currently hasn't changed many due to the user-set map overriding the function. That make sense? –MDCollins (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We should probably eventually remove this, as they no longer have an effect (although, as I say, I plan to re-implement the "nomap" option for it). So the reason not many maps have changed is because the "map_type" was appropriate and the new automation is largely working correctly. Where it should come in useful is when new maps are created; one line added to the template can implement them, rather than having to add a field to the infobox of every place in the area. Warofdreams talk 14:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks great to me so far, and think this is a real asset and strength of this infobox... however, I know you're still working on it, but wanted to let you know Saddleworth has some problems with the |no_map= functionality (you may be able to use it as a guide if your edits are working properly), and we may also have problems where a settlement is split along a county boundary (such as Ramsbottom - though that particular article seems to still function properly somehow!). I must thank you for your efforts though; I welcome any automation of this infobox. Jza84 14:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the example. "nomap" functionality is now working. I've also added a "UK" option for map_type, which will always display the default UK map. Warofdreams talk 15:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mow Cop may be a useful addition to the test cases: it is split at civil parish, district, county, and region level, and at the moment, shows no county map at all, when it did, quite well, before.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mow Cop was in what I hope is a unique position of having a map_type set which isn't generated by one of the fields listed above (it was in shire_county3). It would have worked if we had a default map for Staffordshire, or if there was no map_type set. I've fixed this case by swapping the order of the counties, so that Cheshire now occupies the shire_county field. Warofdreams talk 14:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. It straddles the border in such a way that either map would have been acceptable, though I guess it may have sparked controversy with some people who think of it as being mostly in one or the other county. Thankfully, we haven't had many of them around so far. I've also now tweaked the coords a bit to make the red dot straddle the border more (it is now placed more centrally in the village, though now not exactly on the border-line, such are the feasible limits to calibration of maps.) I also made the order of the regions correspond to the order in which the counties and districts are given.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you have a look at Hemingbrough which now gives the text 'nomap' in place of the UK map? Keith D 14:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it now correct? It looks fine to me; I think this was a very temporary effect caused by me botching an attempt to reintroduce the "nomap" option. Warofdreams talk 14:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for quick response. Keith D 14:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the automation is now working correctly. Please let me know should anyone encounter any broken or unexpected behaviour. Warofdreams talk 15:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok - Runcorn used to show the Cheshire map, but now no longer does so. It is a unitary authority, but still in the ceremonial county of Cheshire, and the new map includes the unitary authorities. It has a map_type set, and removing it does not appear to alter anything: the local Cheshire map still doesn't get shown.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, on limited checking, [[Widnes] (same unitary authority as Runcorn) now also doesn't have the Cheshire map shown, whereas it did before. Same goes for Lymm (in a different unitary authority, but still in Cheshire ceremonial county). I haven't checked other places within unitary authorities within Cheshire, but it may well be that all have reverted to the old map, even though map_type is set to Cheshire, and removing the map_type field may still not work for them (as in the case of Runcorn).  DDStretch  (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that some editing has been done so that unsupported map_types cause the default UK map to be shown. I wonder if these cases I've outlined above have fallen into that category somehow? If so, I hope that there is some way to reverse them. When the Cheshire map was drawn, it was accepted that it would contain the unitary authorities within the ceremonial county of Cheshire, and editors felt the Cheshire map was a great improvement for those articles.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's why they've fallen in to that category. It will definitely be possible to reverse the change, and thanks for finding it. The problem is that instead of placing [[Cheshire]] in the shire_county field, they have it in the |lieutenancy_england field - something which I hadn't considered. It's a bit frustrating that the relevant information is distributed between so many different fields. I've made a temporary fix, but for other unitary authorities in the same position, I'll have to do some further work. Warofdreams talk 16:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that work. Is there any way in which those entries could be made more consistent with other uses of the infobox whilst keeping the information the same, so as not to make this situation need a special fix? It would help keep the coding more clean and more easy to understand. Sorry, I'm not much help at coding this stuff which I think is a bit too esoteric for me at the moment.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I mentioned in reply to Regan below, I've now standardised it so that all unitary authorities work correctly. Warofdreams talk 14:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is worth using the same code as for the Police, Fire & Ambulance and putting it on a sub page as this makes it easy to update. Regan123 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That was my thought, too, and while it's a little more complex as more values need to be passed, it is now working. The relevant sub-page is {{Infobox UK place/map}}. Warofdreams talk 01:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Whilst we are doing this, I wonder if anyone can do anything about an issue I brought up some time ago - the fact that all of the local maps are transcluded to every article. I tried experimenting on this sometime ago and came up with a solution that sort of worked. However, it caused some nasty side effects on a small number of articles (IIRC those articles that had map_type included but assigned to nothing). I assume that, especially as the number of county maps grows, the strain on the servers of transcluding all these templates into each article will become at the very least inelegant.Pit-yacker 11:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

How did you achieve this? I'd be very interested; as you say, the template is becoming increasingly unwieldy, but I couldn't see a way around the transclusions. Warofdreams talk 14:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

IIRC I used something along the lines of replacing the relevant Location map call in each case clause of the switch to {{Location map {{{map_type}}}.... For example, that meant if map_type= Greater Manchester then only Location map Greater Manchester would be explicity mentioned in the template. However, for some reason this didnt when map_type was included but unassigned.Pit-yacker 10:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a line to say Nottingham's map isn't functioning - probably because its a unitary authority that's been overlooked. Jza84 12:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Nottingham was that it lies in a unitary authority but didn't contain the unitary_england field. I've added it in, and it now works. Warofdreams talk 12:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of Nottingham, why is that weird addition to the name just above the map being tolerated? The link seems to suggest it is the Anglo Saxon name of the town (though I thought it would be closer to "Snottingham", which is what a slightly more recent version of the name was), but placing it there gives it a prominence that is just too much and it also suggests it is an alternative name in common use by some groups today, which I strongly suspect it isn't.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears to have been added by User:Jrockley at 21:00, June 12, 2007 when there was a change from the old unitary authority-type infobox to the new UK settlement box, and I'm not sure that for a unitary authority, that is a standard thing to do. What do others think?  DDStretch  (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen any other unitary authorities which have been changed to use this infobox. There's an argument to be made for doing so, but it seems rather odd to just have one in this position. Warofdreams talk 14:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll put the old one back in and see what happens. In any case, I think the Anglo Saxon idiosyncracy should go.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur, and hadn't realised that it was the article for the unitary authority as well as the city.... A local government infobox may be next on the cards here btw; currently we only have tables (inconsistent ones at that) pasted into articles pretending to be infoboxes, though I suppose we ought to perfect this one first eh. Jza84 14:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth compatibility: geotags are invisible

I don't know how much people care about this, but UK places are dropping off the Google Earth wikipedia hot-spots because it can't read the imbedded geotags. Can anything be done to rectify this? It is documented here. We have minor villages featuring on google earth but major towns and cities appear not to have a wikipedia artice. Comments? --Concrete Cowboy 20:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The most elegant solution would be to persuade google to "mash" templates other than Template:Coor series templates. At the moment the "sticking plaster" solution appears to be that we bend to Google's whims and provide an explicit transclusion of a Template:Coor series of templates. My own opinion is that the current solution is very inelegant as:

1. It requires that co-ordinates are included twice in the article. This doesnt make the templates or geotagging articles editor friendly. It also breaks my first law of Wikipedia that duplication is almost always a bad thing.

2. Thousands of articles will be stranded when Google next decide to change which templates they are going to mash or the data formats that they require.

However, problem is although it is probably quite simple for Google to mash further templates (I note they now mention Template:Coord on their website (the one that makes the coordinates display wierdly)), AFAICT they dont seem overly committed to developing Google Earth.

Pit-yacker 20:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"persuade google to "mash" templates other than Template:Coor" - Google Earth are now parsing {[tl|coord}}.

"Thousands of articles will be stranded when Google next decide to change which templates they are going to mash or the data formats that they require" - and your evidence that they will do this is..?

"the one that makes the coordinates display wierdly (sic)" - I have no idea what you mean by that, but can you confirm that you have raised your concerned on the template's talk page?

"AFAICT they dont seem overly committed to developing Google Earth." -Why ever do you say that?

Andy Mabbett 19:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Great if Google are prepared to mash other templates why cant they mash infobox UK place? It seems the simpler solution to me, rather than making editors of Wikipedia go through 4000 odd articles adding a copy of coord or coor just for Google Earth because Google can't be bothered to do the hard (albeit a lot simpler than the approach of tagging each article especially for Google) work developing a product that I assume the ultimately intend to make money out of.

2. No evidence, just a hypothetical situation. ...and what happens if Microsoft, Yahoo, et al choose different templates to mash? Are we going to have locations for each of them? i.e. the simplest solution is at Google's end.

3. Google's commitment to Google Earth - perhaps its the 3 monthly updates to the Wikipedia layer, (whilst Wikipedia World manages it within, at worst, a day or so) or the (it now seems) 6 monthly updates to the community layer. Or even, the fact that there is now no intention of removing placemarks on the community layer that were never even right in the first place, never mind those that are no longer correct. Or maybe the painfully slow roll out of map features beyond a handful of big cities in the US? Who knows maybe I'm wrong? Pit-yacker 10:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Use {{coord}}. Andy Mabbett 19:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Coordinates

Hi,

I've noticed that the coordinates that display at the very top of the article seemed to have shifted up so that they are unclear underneath the article title. Is this my browser or a common problem?

Also when using this infobox do we need to include any other form of {{coor}} template? Many articles have them at the bottom - for other purposes? - and duplicating them will duplicate the coords at the top of the page. Is it safe to just remove these? It's been so long since I've added this template that I've forgotten.

Just decided to convert some of GBThumb!

–MDCollins (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem comes because Template:Coord is now used rather than Template:Coor. It seems to be a problem with coord generally and not just on this template. This issue should probably be addressed to the creators of that template. The co-ordinates on the template are also used to generate the map so if they are removed you will lose the map. Pit-yacker 23:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The Coords now appear correctly, not sure if anyone has altered anything here or there, but well done to whoever solved it.–MDCollins (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Map images

The following comment I will make doesn't strictly belong here as it's not about this template but the UK map images used by {{Location map}}. If there's a better place to discuss this, please tell me where.

The new-style maps are great except for one thing. In my view the boundary lines are too dark. I'd prefer something like 50% grey (#808080), although some experimentation may be required. One reason for this is that it would be great to overlay text like the example to the right here. The problem is that the text can't be easily read with the dark boundaries behind. This could be solved by using an opaque background for each label as I have done for Preston, but it would look nicer if that wasn't necessary.

You might also like to look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps#Map colors (and Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian maps#Conventions, to see what one country has decided).

Incidentally I used Template:Location map+ to generate this, but there is also Template:Location map start which achieves the same effect. --Dr Greg 12:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Maps were developed consulting the community, and are based upon various semotics and sensibilities. I'd be reluctant to pale the boundaries further (Lancashire actually has the palest of the county maps), not least because of the huge task of re-colourisation across the UK. However, for the purposes you outline here, I could provide an alternative map which could be used in the article as you suggest but not in the infobox. Jza84 12:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The (hypothetical) example I gave is just to indicate possible further uses of these maps, across the country and not just in Lancashire. I am posting this query here precisely to "consult the community" to see what they think of this. If there's a better place than this page to perform such a consultation, I'd like to know.

Thanks for your offer, but I have no urgent need of any maps right now. I discovered Template:Location map+ only yesterday, and I think there are all sorts of potential uses for it. (Of course, it would actually be more work to produce duplicate paler versions of all the UK Location Maps that operate in parallel with the existing ones, than to change the existing ones, if there was a consensus to do this.) --Dr Greg 17:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Coming back to this breifly, I think a good use for this would be on our List of places in England articles. The List of places in Greater Manchester has used this (and the prose is also using the full gazetteer style we should be working towards, rather than just listing named settlements). Jza84 11:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Documentation?

The documentation from the main Template:Infobox UK place page seems to have disappeared. Is there a problem with it/has it been mistakenly deleted or moved somehow during today's changes? Jza84 21:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that, as the documentation includes several implementations of this template, its pre-expand include size is too large. This warning appears as a comment in the page's HTML. You can read more about this issue at Wikipedia:Template limits. I've temporarily fixed this by removing the Northern Ireland section, to cut down the number of templates in the documentation. Warofdreams talk 18:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Call me thick or blind, but i still can't find the documentation for how to use this template. All i really want to find is how to do a place that is in one "traditional country" (now part in one UA and a county council) and the county council half is in two borough councils. Pickle 11:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Its reapared, thnaks ;)

UK Local Government District infobox

This infobox appears to be maturing, and rollout and bug-fixes seem to be going well. Can I therefore bring to the attention of editors the urgent need for a standard(ised) Template:Infobox UK district.

This infobox exists to cover settlements within districts/boroughs/unitary authorities. However, the local government districts have no infobox, and instead use tables pretending to be infoboxes pasted directly into articles, and inconsistently at that (compare the very pink North Somerset with Sheffield and Liverpool (which was recently changed to a generic infobox, but has some ordering and formatting problems).

Are there any budding infoboxers interested in earning a very large barnstar, and the UK geography editting community's un-dying respect and try and formulate a prototype or a first step??? Jza84 23:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Conversion Templates that can be used within the infobox

For the fields of population density and distances there are a few different conversion templates that can be used. They will not only make it easier to convert from imperial to metric but they will also format the data as well. Here are some examples converting from imperial to metric:

Population density: {{Pop density mi2 to km2|500|abbr=yes|precision=0|wiki=yes}}--> 500/sq mi (193/km²)

Distances convert miles to km:
{{mi to km|100|}}-->100 miles (161 km)

or when abbreviated:

{{mi to km|100|abbr=yes}}-->100 mi (161 km)

For more information see: {{Pop density mi2 to km2}} and {{mi to km}}

Regards, MJCdetroit 13:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks for this. I presume we should use the formatting "500/sqkm" rather than "500 per sqkm" in the infobox for consistency across the transclusions? Jza84 13:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the way the other infoboxes have done it except the symbols used are /sq mi and /km². An editor just needs to make sure that they only use RAW formatted numbers. Meaning, do not use spaces or commas. The numbers will be formatted automatically. Example: 1000 NOT 1,000...{{mi to km|1000|abbr=yes}}-->1,000 mi (1,609 km)—MJCdetroit 14:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Somerset

Any budding calibrators able to bring Image:Somerset outline map with UK.png to life? Jza84 00:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I've got it pretty much aligned. I've also added it to the infobox. Warofdreams talk 01:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Jza84 10:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

West Kirby

Hi, I've been adding a couple of licensed images to the West Kirby article, but the template is forcing 'edit section' links all over the place. I've tried moving the images around, to no avail. It looks like a template-related problem. Is the template set to float, or is it static? Could this be causing the problem? Any workaround? Coldmachine^Talk 09:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The article appears fine in my browser (internet explorer). Could it be something in your personalised settings? Jza84 10:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the images are squashing up the text by reducing the width, I'm getting edit markers bunched up in groups and overwriting some of the text. Is that the problem you are getting? If it is, each edit link refers to a section that has a short line-length, but I've always found it difficult to work out which. I'm using fairly standard browser settings and running the standard monobook thing. If this is the problem, then to solve it, it might be an idea to distribute the images more throughout the text, and not have them all bunched up together. Alternating them from left and right might also help along with this re-distribution. I don't think it is guaranteed to work, however.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This problem is indeed due to putting all of the pictures into the 'lead' section. This means that they run the length of the article, over the top of any section headings that appear. As a result the 'edit' markers do move into strange places. I have shuffled the pictures around the article (into relevant parts of the text) which has solved the problem. Unfortunately, your first picture doesn't fit into the lead section because of the length of the infobox (due in part to the large map). I've tried to place it to the in between the contents and the infobox, but this doesn't seem possible.

Hope this helps. –MDCollins (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that was the problem: thanks for fixing it! Coldmachine^Talk 11:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Whitespace

This template seems to be injecting a lot of whitespace into the tops of articles, eg Eastleigh. Might be worth someone who knows what they're doing with templates taking a look at it... Martocticvs 22:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had similar issues. The template can output a few html line breaks

<p><br></p>

if some params are missing. I expect there's some excess whitespace in the template (although I don't feel bold enough to go experimenting). For example, adding the OS grid ref to Eastleigh has removed two of the offending carriage returns there. — mholland (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The same problem crops up if the population parameter is present, but has no content, ie, just "population=". --Malleus Fatuarum 13:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Having taken a look at the template, I'm wondering whether the problem might be in the CSS, and not in the template itself, in class "mergedrow" for instance, but I don't know where to find the CSS to check. --Malleus Fatuarum 15:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've just spent a frustrating half hour trying unsuccessfully to remove white space from Banbury. Getting rid of the co-ordinates lines does the trick, but co-ordinates are worth having, so I put them back. This template is seriously flawe if it does this. See also Henley-on-Thames and Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, but not Didcot. Emeraude 10:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem at the articles you have listed is distinct from the problem given above. Banbury, for example, is fine (and validates perfectly), but may suffer from a rendering problem in Internet Explorer. The same problem will occur on the pages you have listed, and on all pages where there is a right-floated image placed directly after the infobox (actually, as you've discovered, it ought only to affect boxes where the coords are present, but for practical purposes that's all of them). A solution is to move the image. I have done this for Banbury, which now renders correctly in IE. — mholland (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That's done it for Banbury, but there must still be hundreds of other articles with the same problem. It may be the fault because of a conflict between the template and IE, but seeing as the vast majority of Wikipedia users are using IE........ the fault lies in the design of the template. It's no use saying that Banbury was "fine" and "validates perfectly" if the result is not fine in IE. If the solution is so simple as to not have an image directly after the template, this ought to be made clear to anyone intending to use it. How many other articles are similarly compromised? Emeraude 19:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, but there do seem to be at least two separate problems with this template. The injection of white space when parameters are missing or values aren't specified for them, and the IE problem that tripped you up earlier today. They can both be worked around though, more or less satisfactorily, but the documentation ought to be clear about the known problems and the workarounds, until the problems are fixed. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The whitespace appears to be coming from the breaks which show up between the end of a if statement }}, an html comment describing what the section is for, and the beginning of the next if statement {{. When I removed the breaks in a test version of the template, the whitespace disappears. Kellen^T 00:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What about if you make sure that the <!-- is flush against the preceding }} and move the closing --> so it's on the same line as, and flush against, the {{ of the next statement? Commenting out the line break ought to solve the problem. Does it? — mholland (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Great, the whitespace has gone! Warofdreams talk 01:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Using this template with Template:Infobox_World_Heritage_Site

Hey this template (infobox UK place) is causing problems with the world heritage template (see Bath, Somerset) as an example. It needs sorting. See Yellowstone National Park for how other Infoboxes work with the World Heritage template. --TFoxton 23:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is lies within the World Heritage Site infobox, not this one. Jza84 18:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Ambulance Services

Hi there,

i was looking at the Burgess Hill article, and it seems that the ambulance service is wrong. South East Coast Ambulance cover this area (not South Central as given), which suggests that there might be a bug in the automatic call function.

Can anyone advise how this is fixed? For a full list of the correct areas see Emergency medical services in the United Kingdom.

Regards Owain.davies 06:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

New Gloucestershire map

Hello UK place team,

Are there any budding calibrators willing to bring the new Gloucestershire county map to life for the infobox? Given alot of Gloucestershire places are in the news due to the flooding, I think this map will aid in bringing articles like Tewkesbury etc upto scratch sooner rather than later. Jza84 20:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I've got it pretty much calibrated. Warofdreams talk 13:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

New Hampshire map (not New Hampshire!)

Hello again,

Are there any budding calibrators willing to bring the new Hampshire county map to life for the infobox? Jza84 14:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think that's working now. Keep up the good work, Warofdreams talk 20:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

New North Yorks map

Hello yet again!

I've managed to draw up a new North Yorkshire county map. Anybody willing to amalgamate into the infobox? Jza84 02:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet more maps

I've been working flat out (between edits!) to create two more maps. I'm aiming to get the whole of England mapped asap!

I have a new Rutland map and a new Cumbria map. Anybody able and willing to calibrate these two? Hope so! Jza84 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

These appear to be working correctly now. Pit-yacker 15:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! These are pointing perfectly!... We have the comment for Rutland still saying "X shown within the United Kingdom" rather than "X shown within Rutland" - I'm sure it can easily be fixed. Thanks again though!... only 20 more counties to go! Jza84 16:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just completed a new Warwickshire map, anybody able to set this one up too? Hope so! Jza84 02:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be working Pit-yacker 02:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Division splits

OK with the documentation's reappearance since when i last looked, i want to correct Walderslade, which I've bodged so far. Its mainly in Medway (thus "unitary_england" and "lieutenancy_england = Kent ") but is *also* in Kent (as in "shire_district=" and "shire_county = Kent"). To slightly complicate things further its has two "shire_district"s ( Tonbridge and Malling and Maidstone (borough)). Any pointers / help in the right direction about how to implement this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance and some cracking work. Pickle 03:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I've fixed this. For multiple shire districts, one can use "shire_district=" then "shire_district1=", others can be listed within shire_district1= using the <br> tool. I also applied WP:UKCITIES to that article! Hope that helps, Jza84 13:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on that, greatly appreciated! Pickle 18:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.