This page 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. |
Some working examples using this template can be found here. MRSC • Talk 21:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Taking a closer look at the code used, it looks like quite a lot of the switches used in Template:Infobox London place are no longer present. Technically, of course, this is not really that big a problem, but it would save a lot of trouble if they were re-instated with particular reference to GLA seats and the UK STD code 20. Also, given that the 9 English regions make up the 9 European Parliament constituencies (and Scotland and Wales are their own), I'd be tempted to work out some kind of automation for the "constituency_europe" field to output [[{{{region}} (European Parliament constituency)]] for English locations, and automate Scotland/Wales for their respective ones. DJR ( T) 21:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure the code is correct for the dynamic Manchester location map, but I can seem to get a dot to appear. My efforts at User:Djr_xi/Stretford produce a map of Greater Manchester, but fail to locate Stretford within. Any ideas? DJR ( T) 22:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys! I'm interested in taking a look at or collaborating on a dynamic Greater Manchester map! I had considered producing one some time ago based upon the London map, but didn't have the know-how. Once things look like they may be ready for implimenting, please drop me a line and I'd be happy to peer review and/or roll out. Thanks, Jhamez84 17:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The Greater Manchester Urban Area article features a free-to-use NASA image I added some time ago. Might be a possibility, but I'm working on some alternatives for the time being. Jhamez84 20:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
A few notes about what this template offers over the existing ones. MRSC • Talk 12:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The template currently has three alternative languages for place names (Welsh, Gaelic and Scots). Are there any others in common usage that should be added? MRSC • Talk 18:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Like this a lot, excellent work. Just one point, is it possible to put in the fire/police/ambulance automated as I did with the England infobox? Regan123 22:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Or we could do it based on:
Every article will have at least one of these. MRSC • Talk 15:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Great. Yes it looks right to me. I've made a copy of it for police look-up, but that needs to be updated for police forces. These can be worked out accurately from the same fields, can't they? MRSC • Talk 23:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Lincolnshire has a small issue when it comes to setting up Template:Infobox UK place /police. Take a look at Lincolnshire Police & Humberside Police and you will see that North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire are in the Humberside Police area. WOSlinker 20:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not suggesting the old templates should redirect here. This template is an opportunity to wipe the board clean and start again. Each of the four templates has lots of bespoke elements, often done differently on each template. Adding in the legacy code from each of the four templates would make this one as creaky as the ones it is replacing. Also, us having to update the calling syntax (although a lengthy process) will allow us to revisit what is put on each article and correct errors/fill gaps. MRSC • Talk 07:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This tenplate looks very good, and I'll certainly be very happy to use it. I have one gentle question about it, however. For places in Scotland, we have a map of only Scotland, but for a place in England we have the map of Great Britain in its entirity. Given the size of the red dot, the accuracy of the "dotted map" could be improved by having the map shopw only England (and hence be of a larger size). I don't know if this could be done or how much work might be involved, but might the infobox be improved for an place in England if a map of only England was used? I'd be happy to try to give it a go myself if someone could tell me how to do it. DDStretch (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Have we considered having both a UK wide map at the top, then a sublevel map (island, region, conurbation, county etc) at the bottom? I think this would be the most useful to readers, but am unsure of the end product's look. Jhamez84 19:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
In terms of the countries, as I remember reading somewhere else, I have to agree that a map of, for example, Scotland decapitated from the rest of Britain is likely to mislead and cause confusion for those unfamilar with the UK. However, in terms of conurbations, the UK map makes it difficult to distinguish between places so a more local map is justified. However, a national map is still needed for those who dont know where London, Greater Manchester, etc. are located. On the other side of the coin, IMHO having a number of large maps on an infobox makes them too unwieldy, expecially for short articles. One solution: Would it be possible to have a local map with a small map of the UK inset in the corner of the image showing the location of the conurbation within the UK? Pit-yacker 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Crystal Palace, London is, apparently, in 5 different London boroughs. To make matters worse, this does not correspond to 5 GLA constituencies, as two pairs overlap, meaning that there are only GLA 3 constituencies. The implications for this template would suggest we need some kind of code that allows multiple entries for london_borough (or just add even more optional fields), and some kind of system for the GLAoutput that filters GLA constituencies that have already appeared. I'm sure that latter would be possible using multiple switches in tandem, but I'm not in a position to try and think about it myself at the moment... DJR ( T) 13:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
(topic moved from Template talk:Infobox England place as suggested below)
The 360 degree decimal format is very sensible for data entry into the infoboxes, but it is not friendly to the lay reader. Negative numbers (for locations west of 0) are particularly disconcerting. If someone knows how to programme the conversion to degrees minutes seconds E/W/N/S, please do. -- Concrete Cowboy 13:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we please have the old settings of constituent country and sovereign state in this infobox? This is not only the most neutral, but the most verifiable and useful to international readers. Also can we please have the full spelling of United Kingdom rather than UK? Jhamez84 20:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I can just see that once editors involved closely with Scotland and the like take a look at the infobox, that the use of "country" will become an issue. I also maintain it is the most verifiable approach to use. I think it is worth the extra line. Jhamez84 14:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we automate the population of Constituent country on this template - the less to fill out, the quicker it is to add. Regan123 17:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by how these two fields are supposed to work together. My initial thought was that "parish" would contain the name of the parish in which the settlement (or place) is located, with "parish_status" perhaps containing "Town" (if the parish council calls itself a "town council", and "parish" (if it calls itself a parish council), but one would then need to have to have something like "Meeting", because some parishes have parish meetings at which all residents are allowed to attend and speak, rather than a formal council. Some appear not to have anything, even though they are still classified as parishes (this happens in Cheshire, where the Borough or District council has to take on te duties normally devolved to a parish/town council or parish meeting.) However, I'm now not so sure.
There is also the issue that occurs to a large extent in parts of Cheshire, where separate parishes have joint parish councils (and the constituent parishes of these sometimes have "parish wards" as well), though the parishes are still separate and have not merged. Some parishes even hold joint parish meetings, even though the parishes themselves are kept separate. I've gone into this in rather great detail in trying to sort out the local government of Cheshire, and I doubt Cheshire is an oddity in this respect. It is one reason why I have suggested that there is a need for articles dealing with some parishes separate from the settlements they contain, and, by extension, why there may be a need for a separate parish infobox. So, would it be possible to clarify what the two fields in the current infobox refer to and how they would be understood to be used? Many thanks. DDStretch (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have to return to this, but I really think it needs more clarification. How will the two fields be practically used?
I apologise for being a bit insistent, but I really do think the use of these two fields is not clear, given the current state of the documentation for them. And I tyhink it is not clear enough just how they are to be used in particular instances. I seriously wonder whether a simpler solution of just having one single field named "parish" would suffice, where it would contain either "unparished" for areas that are not parished, or the name of the parish within which the infobox's settlement is located. Any misapprehension I might have about this may, I gently suggest, be evidence of the lack of clarity of the two fields and their documentation as they stand at the moment. DDStretch (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think adding 'unparished area' to articles is a good idea as, for example, it would be added to every article in Greater London. Some editors resent infoboxes and adding this level of repetition would add fuel to their fire.
Hope this helps. If this still isn't clear I will populate a few examples when I get a moment and then it will hopefully become real. MRSC • Talk 17:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
My initial thoughts are that unparished areas that have parish meetings should not have this information in the infobox, as that section relates to divisions of land as opposed to events. Explaining these unusual administrative situations is probably better spent in the main text than the infoboxes anyway. Jhamez84 01:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this system legally recognised at all? How widespread is this kind of parish in the UK? I'm not challenging this idea, I just think these two issues are fundamental to this system's inclusion. Jhamez84 08:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, some responses:
I think the Parish Council becomes a Town Council, rather than the parish becomes a town. It could be lost from the box altogether really as its not that significant, although it is often not recorded in articles. MRSC • Talk 17:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
While area_code is fairly obvious, I must admit it is gets fairly confusing as area usually implies geography which implies postal code. That may just be where I am, but perhaps we could consider renaming the field something like "STD_code" or even "telephone code". In addition, would it be possible to use a #switch function to link an entry of 020 to the page UK STD code 20, but also allow any other entry? I seem to be having troubles in my sandbox. DJR ( T) 12:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this template ready to use, or is still in a pre-release stage? Pit-yacker 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added a to-do list of outstanding issues. MRSC • Talk 09:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Does this template need adding to a few categories?
e.g.
[[Category:Geography infobox templates]] [[Category:United Kingdom navigational boxes]]
WOSlinker 10:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought we are supposed to discuss additions to the template here first, in order to achieve consensus. But I am a bit puzzled why User:Owain continues to add some fields to do with "Historic counties" to the infobox without so doing, despite it being removed on a number of occasions. The latest remioval has been by myself just now. Can I just ask whether my interpretation of the process (i.e., discussion here to achieve consensus first before making changes) is correct, and, if so, invite comments about the continual additions being made? DDStretch (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
(reply to Owain) re: Again you are missing the point - they are not "former".... Do not attempt to use this talk page as yet another soapbox for your unsubstantiated views. WP:SOAP WP:NPOV The websites you cite do not support your claims and neither do a raft of academic literature on the subject. It would take the most imaginative synthesis to construct the idea you purport. WP:OR Please stop disrupting the workings of this encyclopedia project. WP:POINT The very language you use - manufactured administrative areas - to describe the information this encyclopedia should only convey as current; that is, current and verifiable information; betrays your actual purpose. Please take heed of the variety of editors who have reverted your addition (I believe five times now) and are taking the opportunity this talk page gives to tell you they are not happy with your inclusion. MRSC • Talk 19:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Owain, you know full well all this 'historic' stuff has long been discredited by a range of academic citations used on articles such as Historic counties of England. The reason this was included in the original template is because at the time of its creation, these sources had not been researched and some editors lied to the others. It is not current information, it does not belong here, it should not be in the current template or this replacement. Your comments on this talk page are just a shameless attempt to give more airtime to your discredited views. 13:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
What are our thoughts on this being automated? It is mostly done by regions, but I seem to remember there being small exceptions (aside from the South East split). If we have a good schedule of these exceptions it can be factored-in. Does anyone have a such a list? MRSC • Talk 00:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
{{infobox England place| |Latitude= 54.326069 |Longitude= -2.745048 |Place= Kendal |Population = 27,521 ([[United Kingdom Census 2001|2001 Census]]) |District= [[South Lakeland]] |County= [[Cumbria]] |Region= [[North West England]] |Ceremonial= [[Cumbria]] |Traditional= [[Westmorland]] |Constituency= [[Westmorland and Lonsdale (UK Parliament constituency)|Westmorland and Lonsdale]] |PostalTown= KENDAL |PostCode= LA9 |DiallingCode= 01539 |GridReference= SD515925 |Euro= [[North West England (European Parliament constituency)|North West England]] |Police= [[Cumbria Constabulary]] }} </td><td valign="top"> {{Infobox UK place | official_name= Kendal | population= 27,521 ([[United Kingdom Census 2001|2001 Census]]) | country= England | os_grid_reference= SD515925 | latitude= 54.326069 | longitude= -2.745048 | post_town= KENDAL | postcode_area= LA | postcode_district= LA9 | dial_code= 01539 | constituency_westminster= [[Westmorland and Lonsdale (UK Parliament constituency)|Westmorland and Lonsdale]] | police= Cumbria | fire= Cumbria | civil_parish= Kendal | shire_district= [[South Lakeland]] | shire_county= [[Cumbria]] | historic_county= [[Westmorland]] | region= North West England }} |
Some thoughts:
Owain ( talk) 10:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I re-iterate that the ceremonial county should be removed from the administration section and placed alongside the historic county information in an 'other' section as neither have any administrative role. This is consistent with the existing template. Why is this being constantly reverted? Owain ( talk) 13:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
How about including a section for the Scottish Sheriffdom? MRM 13:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Another suggestion, but I fully understand if this one ought not to be included. How about including religion. For example, in the Outer Hebrides, Lewis and Harris are primarily Protestant but Uist is primarily Catholic. Could be useful, but could also be rather controversial. MRM 11:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Template:Infobox England place with UK flag for UK map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Pit-yacker 16:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I've made this automatic for Scotland and Wales, but left it manual for England just now. MRSC • Talk 07:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Of the regions I've done so far, all but East Midlands work by using data already in the template. According to this schedule only Glossop is an exception in the E Midlands, so I've used official_name to exclude that settlement only. I would imagine there may be a few settlements, i.e. suburbs of Glossop that will also be affected and they will need to be added to this template in the same way for it to work. MRSC • Talk 10:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
For the split districts of Hart and Vale of White Horse I've taken a different approach and instead made these default to {{{ambulance_service}}} which can then be added manually in the article. Everything else works automatically. MRSC • Talk 12:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, the split of these districts is:
This will need to be added to the documentation as well as the situation for Glossop. MRSC • Talk 17:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to test the template out in a variety of place articles to make sure it works. We should look to documenting all the possible permutations. Some work has already been done on that here. MRSC • Talk 12:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
How clever are bots? Could one look at articles linking to template:Infobox England place and convert the syntax such as 'place=Cambridge' to 'official_name=Cambridge', add 'country=England' etc. Does anyone know how to create/request this? The specification would have to be very detailed, perhaps this is more a job for AWB, which I've also never used. Anyone any idea if that would help? MRSC • Talk 19:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Here are the number of instances of the current templates:
Around 2,500 is quite a few! MRSC • Talk 20:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Pit-yacker 23:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The Police & Ambulance for Cleethorpes in the new Infobox don't match what's in the old Infobox. WOSlinker 22:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
{{infobox England place| |Latitude= 53.553352 |Longitude= -0.021558 |Place= Cleethorpes |Population = 34,907 (2001 census) |District= [[North East Lincolnshire]] |Region= [[Yorkshire and the Humber]] |Police= [[Humberside Police]] |Ceremonial= [[Lincolnshire]] |Traditional= [[Lincolnshire]] |Constituency= [[Cleethorpes (UK Parliament constituency)|Cleethorpes]] |PostalTown= CLEETHORPES |PostCode= DN35 |DiallingCode= 01472 |GridReference= TA310081 |Euro= [[Yorkshire and the Humber (European Parliament constituency)|Yorkshire and the Humber]] }} |
|
Came across Template:Infobox Sheffield place this whilst having a wander. Can we merge this in as well? Regan123 00:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The same for Template:Infobox Tyne and Wear place? Pit-yacker 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Instead of having uk_latitude, coor_latitude, london_latitude and manchester_latitude & their associated longitude, why not just have latitude & longitude and have another parameter called maptype?
maptype could then be set to nomap, United Kingdom (default value, so not required to be set), Greater London or Greater Manchester.
Would also make it simpler to add further map images.
WOSlinker 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
}}<!-- ***** Dynamic map ***** --> {{#if:{{{latitude|}}}|<tr><td colspan="2" align="center"> {{#switch: {{{maptype|United Kingdom}}} | nomap = <!-- No Map --> | United Kingdom = {{location map|United Kingdom|label=|position=center|width=150|lat={{{latitude|}}}|long={{{longitude|}}}|caption=|float=}} | Greater London = {{location map|Greater London|label=|position=center|width=290|lat={{{latitude|}}}|long={{{longitude|}}}|caption=|float=}} | Greater Manchester = {{location map|Greater Manchester|label=|position=center|width=290|lat={{{latitude|}}}|long={{{longitude|}}}|caption=|float=}} }} {{Coor title d|{{{latitude}}}|N|{{{longitude}}}|E|region:GB_type:city}} </td> </tr> }}<!-- ***** Population ***** -->
If anyone wants to rename the template again, please discuss it first. Simply doing a page move, without moving the look-up tables will break it. MRSC • Talk 07:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This is failure to assume to good faith. Look above at this talk page, look at all the extensive discussions that have gone into this template from a range of editors. It is a fine piece of collaboration. Then look at the things you are saying. MRSC • Talk 07:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
For the first time in my life I'm going to have to agree with Mais oui!! This may well be a worthwhile exercise if all of our concerns are addressed, but at the moment it seems like MRSC's pet project and he will reject all criticism or attempts to improve it. I suggested a non-controversial addition to the template to make it work like the existing ones do, nobody disagreed with any of my points or even bothered to reply in three days so I made the change and was promptly reverted. This is not the way to build a comprehensive replacement for the existing British templates. Owain ( talk) 09:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've taken what Owain has said to heart and conducted a review of all amendments, both suggested and actioned, since the template was created:
User | Amendment | Result |
---|---|---|
User:Djr xi | add Greater Manchester map | implemented |
User:Djr xi | change country from link to value | implemented |
User:Djr xi | change London borough from link to value | implemented |
User:Djr xi | automate EU constituency | implemented |
User:Mais oui! | delete template | not done; unanimous TFD vote to KEEP |
User:Djr xi | rename westminster_constituency to westminster | not done |
User:Mholland | add cornish language | implemented |
User:Morrismaciver | add languages spoken | implemented |
User:Regan123 | automate fire and police | implemented |
User:Djr xi | automate London Assembly constituency | implemented |
User:Jhamez84 | UK expanded to United Kingdom | implemented |
User:Jhamez84 | change Machester map | implemented |
User:Jhamez84 | parish council changed to parish | implemented |
User:Regan123 | automate constituent country | not done |
User:Ddstretch | remove parish_status field | implemented |
User:Djr xi | rename area_code to dial_code | implemented |
User:WOSlinker | add categories | implemented |
User:Owain | add 'historic counties' | not done; rejected by User:Mais oui!, User:Ddstretch, User:MRSC, User:Djr xi |
User:Regan123 | automate ambulance | implemented |
User:Owain | insert ceremonial counties for all | not done; rejected by User:Ddstretch, User:MRSC |
User:Morrismaciver | add sheriffdom | not yet done |
User:WOSlinker | combine maps into one | implemented |
User:Mais oui! | page move | implemented |
User:Mais oui! | retain static Scottish maps | implemented |
User:Mais oui! | include Northern Ireland | in discussion |
Based on this, I do not think his words are fair or justified. If there is someone who isn't listening, it isn't me. MRSC • Talk 14:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The point is I am not trying to have anything controversial "added". If this template is supposed to be a replacement for the existing ones, then all I am asking for is that the existing fields (that are used on 2500+ articles) are carried over into this new template. Any attempt to blanket change articles to use this template will result in the deliberate loss of verifiable information which is clearly influenced by a POV viewpoint. I am also asking that the layout be modified to place the ceremonial and historic county information explicitly in their own section (as is currently the case with the existing templates). This allows them to be easily compared between articles, rather than having the ceremonial field appear and disappear depending on the local government situation. Also, its present location in the "administration" section is misleading. In point of fact Jhamez84 agrees that these fields should be present, but not in the administration section, which is exactly what I am proposing. Owain ( talk) 10:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Another option would be a straw poll. Whilst consensus is very important it is also important to recognise consensus can change. Maybe it is time to confirm or change the consensus? Regan123 22:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
MRSC, could you please tell us, as clearly and succinctly as possible, exactly why you have created this template? What are the weaknesses with the 4 existing templates, as you see it? As far as I am aware you have not had any problems with any of them prior to now, so exactly why are you now engaged in trying to delete our long-standing templates? We deserve to know your objective(s). -- Mais oui! 10:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Any good reasons not to have one template? MRSC • Talk 11:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I can only think of one at the moment, there is a significant chance (more than most times in the past) that Scotland could leave the UK in the near future, but I'm sure that we could either adapt the UK one or keep the current Scotland one (without deleting it if this one becomes the standard) for that eventuality. While I would, from a personal and nationalistic pov prefer separate ones for the UK countries, from a Wiki neutral pov, I have to agree that under the current position, it is best to have a UK one.
Would there be any barriers to creating an EU-wide one? MRM 15:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there a desire to add Northern Ireland to the infobox? MRSC • Talk 13:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
On thing that both Template:Infobox Place Ireland & Template:Infobox City have is the option to include a website. Perhaps this addition might be considered. WOSlinker 21:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a comparison between Template:Infobox Irish Place and Template:Infobox UK place for Belfast. WOSlinker 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
{{Infobox Irish Place| name = Belfast | gaeilge = Béal Feirste | scots = Bilfawst | crest image = Belfast city CoA painting.png | motto = Pro Tanto Quid Retribuamus <br>"What shall we give in return for so much" | map image = NorthernIrelandBelfast.png | pin coords = left: 158px; top: 81px | north coord = 54.596 | west coord = 5.914 | area = 115 km² | province = Ulster | county = [[County Antrim]] | NI district = [[Belfast City Council|Belfast]]| UK constituency = [[Belfast North (UK Parliament constituency)|Belfast North]]</br>[[Belfast South (UK Parliament constituency)|Belfast South]]</br>[[Belfast East (UK Parliament constituency)|Belfast East]]</br>[[Belfast West (UK Parliament constituency)|Belfast West]]| EU constituency = [[Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency)|Northern Ireland]]| population = 276,459 | population note = <br/><small>[[Belfast Metropolitan Area|Metropolitan Area]]:<br> 579,276 </small> | stdcode = 028, +44 28| posttown = Belfast| postcode = BT1-BT17, BT29 (part of), BT58| census yr = 2001 | web = www.belfastcity.gov.uk | |}} |
|
|
I'm going to add the remaing fields for NI. It can't do any harm, the worst thing that can happen is that they will be unused. It will not affect the rest of the template. I suppose I should move the template back to its original name? MRSC • Talk 06:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Preumably the red locator dot functionality, as indicated in the link I gave above will be, or is, included on this template? -- Mal 00:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying to get my head round AWB. From a brief trial of its features, what I think might be a good technique is updating articles on a district-by-district basis as that is the lowest level that the structure will be the same and there will be the most common elements that can be pre-selected; the rest will be picked up or discarded from the original syntax. Has anyone had any success constructing the arguments? MRSC • Talk 13:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This is currently included only where a place is not in a shire or metropolitan county. Instead, this should be included in an "other" section on all articles.
Support
Oppose
This is currently not included. Instead, this should be included in an "other" section on all articles.
Support
Oppose
Is it possible that people could put an explanation here? Owain ( talk) 10:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Making Ceremonial County compulsory merely brings duplication to those articles which already have county in some other form. I thought part of the idea of this infobox was to reduce the size of a box that currently overwhelms many of the articles. I'm currently abstaining on Historical County - in those cases where there is no change it should definitely stay out - if we must have it, perhaps there should be some sort of match that leaves it out when they are equal? As for the cases where it is different, in such cases, AFAICT there are sometimes numerous historical counties, and these changes have often been made at various points throughout time not just 1974! Surely this suggests dates should be provided - in which case it starts to get silly. This also raises the issue of what we regard as an historical county. Is Cleveland a historical county? Also how are tiny "outposts" of a county verified? Pit-yacker 15:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
previous_division_name = County of London previous_division_end_year = 1965 previous_division_name1 = Middlesex previous_division_end_year1 = 1889
Owain, we've already had the debate and you wouldn't accept the result! This straw poll is intended to reinforce it. You had the opportunity for debate but instead starting making unfounded accuasations. MRSC • Talk 15:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
In response to MRM: The previous Wikipedia consensus was to refer to them as "traditional counties", but it was gradually changed to "historic counties" as per Encyclopædia Britannica. The true legal name is "Ancient or geographic counties", but this is a bit of a mouthful, so "Ancient county" is another possible compromise name. As regards the county of London, that was never a historic/ancient county, but an administrative county as per the LGA 1889, so stating "Middlesex until 1889, then London until 1965" wouldn't be strictly accurate. The ancient or geographic county is still Middlesex. Owain ( talk) 18:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the notion that we need to be succinct in the infobox would tend to rule out unnecessary information. The inclusion of information which is poorly defined would also tend to be inappropriate, especially since any attempt to clarify the cases where a place has been in a number of counties in the past would be carried out in the main text if so desired. For this reason, I believe it should be omitted. Any desire to give the counties in which a place was allocated during its history should, I think, result in it being placed in an appropriate section in the main text of an article. It is, for example, what I am attempting to do with what could also be called the "historic parish" information. I would not think appropriate to include "historic parish" or "ecclesiastical parish" or even "historic ecclesiastical parish" in this infobox, yet these might be as equally important to many local people as the "historic county". Indeed, for some of the purposes of tracing family history and registrations of births, marriages, and deaths, it might even be more useful. DDStretch (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
As everyone who has been involved in this template seems to have voted (and some who haven't) can we draw some conclusions? As far as I can see the consensus that was already evident from earlier discussions is reconfirmed. MRSC • Talk 11:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been directed here from discussions on a London place template. But am I in the right place? Is the intention to have the same template for all places? The same template for a city as for an informal, non-official area, such as Soho and Bloomsbury? How would that work? Would people have the option to not include information such as Services, which are the responsibility of a local authority, rather than a non-official neighbourhood? SilkTork 08:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I like to print out articles on areas that I am visiting. I just printed out Brighton and was surprised at the amount of space taken by the Infobox. This appears to be because the OS grid reference has a link, and the link is printed out in full, expanding the width of the box to 3/4 of the page. Is there a way of preventing this from happening? SilkTork 22:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I've provisionally upgraded the infobox at the Shaw and Crompton article. I think it looks good, but have we considered including somehow a message that could say "Shown within X" depending on what map is selected? (So X being Greater Manchester in this case).
I think this would be a significant improvement in providing a wider national and international context, but I'm unsure if it is technically feasible. If it is feasible, I think it should use the "<small></small>" text, and with X being linked. Jhamez84 01:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
As NI is now fully functional, I'm going to move this template back to Template:Infobox UK place and fix the incoming links. MRSC • Talk 06:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This page 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. |
Some working examples using this template can be found here. MRSC • Talk 21:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Taking a closer look at the code used, it looks like quite a lot of the switches used in Template:Infobox London place are no longer present. Technically, of course, this is not really that big a problem, but it would save a lot of trouble if they were re-instated with particular reference to GLA seats and the UK STD code 20. Also, given that the 9 English regions make up the 9 European Parliament constituencies (and Scotland and Wales are their own), I'd be tempted to work out some kind of automation for the "constituency_europe" field to output [[{{{region}} (European Parliament constituency)]] for English locations, and automate Scotland/Wales for their respective ones. DJR ( T) 21:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure the code is correct for the dynamic Manchester location map, but I can seem to get a dot to appear. My efforts at User:Djr_xi/Stretford produce a map of Greater Manchester, but fail to locate Stretford within. Any ideas? DJR ( T) 22:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys! I'm interested in taking a look at or collaborating on a dynamic Greater Manchester map! I had considered producing one some time ago based upon the London map, but didn't have the know-how. Once things look like they may be ready for implimenting, please drop me a line and I'd be happy to peer review and/or roll out. Thanks, Jhamez84 17:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The Greater Manchester Urban Area article features a free-to-use NASA image I added some time ago. Might be a possibility, but I'm working on some alternatives for the time being. Jhamez84 20:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
A few notes about what this template offers over the existing ones. MRSC • Talk 12:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The template currently has three alternative languages for place names (Welsh, Gaelic and Scots). Are there any others in common usage that should be added? MRSC • Talk 18:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Like this a lot, excellent work. Just one point, is it possible to put in the fire/police/ambulance automated as I did with the England infobox? Regan123 22:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Or we could do it based on:
Every article will have at least one of these. MRSC • Talk 15:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Great. Yes it looks right to me. I've made a copy of it for police look-up, but that needs to be updated for police forces. These can be worked out accurately from the same fields, can't they? MRSC • Talk 23:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Lincolnshire has a small issue when it comes to setting up Template:Infobox UK place /police. Take a look at Lincolnshire Police & Humberside Police and you will see that North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire are in the Humberside Police area. WOSlinker 20:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not suggesting the old templates should redirect here. This template is an opportunity to wipe the board clean and start again. Each of the four templates has lots of bespoke elements, often done differently on each template. Adding in the legacy code from each of the four templates would make this one as creaky as the ones it is replacing. Also, us having to update the calling syntax (although a lengthy process) will allow us to revisit what is put on each article and correct errors/fill gaps. MRSC • Talk 07:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This tenplate looks very good, and I'll certainly be very happy to use it. I have one gentle question about it, however. For places in Scotland, we have a map of only Scotland, but for a place in England we have the map of Great Britain in its entirity. Given the size of the red dot, the accuracy of the "dotted map" could be improved by having the map shopw only England (and hence be of a larger size). I don't know if this could be done or how much work might be involved, but might the infobox be improved for an place in England if a map of only England was used? I'd be happy to try to give it a go myself if someone could tell me how to do it. DDStretch (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Have we considered having both a UK wide map at the top, then a sublevel map (island, region, conurbation, county etc) at the bottom? I think this would be the most useful to readers, but am unsure of the end product's look. Jhamez84 19:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
In terms of the countries, as I remember reading somewhere else, I have to agree that a map of, for example, Scotland decapitated from the rest of Britain is likely to mislead and cause confusion for those unfamilar with the UK. However, in terms of conurbations, the UK map makes it difficult to distinguish between places so a more local map is justified. However, a national map is still needed for those who dont know where London, Greater Manchester, etc. are located. On the other side of the coin, IMHO having a number of large maps on an infobox makes them too unwieldy, expecially for short articles. One solution: Would it be possible to have a local map with a small map of the UK inset in the corner of the image showing the location of the conurbation within the UK? Pit-yacker 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Crystal Palace, London is, apparently, in 5 different London boroughs. To make matters worse, this does not correspond to 5 GLA constituencies, as two pairs overlap, meaning that there are only GLA 3 constituencies. The implications for this template would suggest we need some kind of code that allows multiple entries for london_borough (or just add even more optional fields), and some kind of system for the GLAoutput that filters GLA constituencies that have already appeared. I'm sure that latter would be possible using multiple switches in tandem, but I'm not in a position to try and think about it myself at the moment... DJR ( T) 13:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
(topic moved from Template talk:Infobox England place as suggested below)
The 360 degree decimal format is very sensible for data entry into the infoboxes, but it is not friendly to the lay reader. Negative numbers (for locations west of 0) are particularly disconcerting. If someone knows how to programme the conversion to degrees minutes seconds E/W/N/S, please do. -- Concrete Cowboy 13:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we please have the old settings of constituent country and sovereign state in this infobox? This is not only the most neutral, but the most verifiable and useful to international readers. Also can we please have the full spelling of United Kingdom rather than UK? Jhamez84 20:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I can just see that once editors involved closely with Scotland and the like take a look at the infobox, that the use of "country" will become an issue. I also maintain it is the most verifiable approach to use. I think it is worth the extra line. Jhamez84 14:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we automate the population of Constituent country on this template - the less to fill out, the quicker it is to add. Regan123 17:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused by how these two fields are supposed to work together. My initial thought was that "parish" would contain the name of the parish in which the settlement (or place) is located, with "parish_status" perhaps containing "Town" (if the parish council calls itself a "town council", and "parish" (if it calls itself a parish council), but one would then need to have to have something like "Meeting", because some parishes have parish meetings at which all residents are allowed to attend and speak, rather than a formal council. Some appear not to have anything, even though they are still classified as parishes (this happens in Cheshire, where the Borough or District council has to take on te duties normally devolved to a parish/town council or parish meeting.) However, I'm now not so sure.
There is also the issue that occurs to a large extent in parts of Cheshire, where separate parishes have joint parish councils (and the constituent parishes of these sometimes have "parish wards" as well), though the parishes are still separate and have not merged. Some parishes even hold joint parish meetings, even though the parishes themselves are kept separate. I've gone into this in rather great detail in trying to sort out the local government of Cheshire, and I doubt Cheshire is an oddity in this respect. It is one reason why I have suggested that there is a need for articles dealing with some parishes separate from the settlements they contain, and, by extension, why there may be a need for a separate parish infobox. So, would it be possible to clarify what the two fields in the current infobox refer to and how they would be understood to be used? Many thanks. DDStretch (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have to return to this, but I really think it needs more clarification. How will the two fields be practically used?
I apologise for being a bit insistent, but I really do think the use of these two fields is not clear, given the current state of the documentation for them. And I tyhink it is not clear enough just how they are to be used in particular instances. I seriously wonder whether a simpler solution of just having one single field named "parish" would suffice, where it would contain either "unparished" for areas that are not parished, or the name of the parish within which the infobox's settlement is located. Any misapprehension I might have about this may, I gently suggest, be evidence of the lack of clarity of the two fields and their documentation as they stand at the moment. DDStretch (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think adding 'unparished area' to articles is a good idea as, for example, it would be added to every article in Greater London. Some editors resent infoboxes and adding this level of repetition would add fuel to their fire.
Hope this helps. If this still isn't clear I will populate a few examples when I get a moment and then it will hopefully become real. MRSC • Talk 17:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
My initial thoughts are that unparished areas that have parish meetings should not have this information in the infobox, as that section relates to divisions of land as opposed to events. Explaining these unusual administrative situations is probably better spent in the main text than the infoboxes anyway. Jhamez84 01:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this system legally recognised at all? How widespread is this kind of parish in the UK? I'm not challenging this idea, I just think these two issues are fundamental to this system's inclusion. Jhamez84 08:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, some responses:
I think the Parish Council becomes a Town Council, rather than the parish becomes a town. It could be lost from the box altogether really as its not that significant, although it is often not recorded in articles. MRSC • Talk 17:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
While area_code is fairly obvious, I must admit it is gets fairly confusing as area usually implies geography which implies postal code. That may just be where I am, but perhaps we could consider renaming the field something like "STD_code" or even "telephone code". In addition, would it be possible to use a #switch function to link an entry of 020 to the page UK STD code 20, but also allow any other entry? I seem to be having troubles in my sandbox. DJR ( T) 12:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this template ready to use, or is still in a pre-release stage? Pit-yacker 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added a to-do list of outstanding issues. MRSC • Talk 09:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Does this template need adding to a few categories?
e.g.
[[Category:Geography infobox templates]] [[Category:United Kingdom navigational boxes]]
WOSlinker 10:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought we are supposed to discuss additions to the template here first, in order to achieve consensus. But I am a bit puzzled why User:Owain continues to add some fields to do with "Historic counties" to the infobox without so doing, despite it being removed on a number of occasions. The latest remioval has been by myself just now. Can I just ask whether my interpretation of the process (i.e., discussion here to achieve consensus first before making changes) is correct, and, if so, invite comments about the continual additions being made? DDStretch (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
(reply to Owain) re: Again you are missing the point - they are not "former".... Do not attempt to use this talk page as yet another soapbox for your unsubstantiated views. WP:SOAP WP:NPOV The websites you cite do not support your claims and neither do a raft of academic literature on the subject. It would take the most imaginative synthesis to construct the idea you purport. WP:OR Please stop disrupting the workings of this encyclopedia project. WP:POINT The very language you use - manufactured administrative areas - to describe the information this encyclopedia should only convey as current; that is, current and verifiable information; betrays your actual purpose. Please take heed of the variety of editors who have reverted your addition (I believe five times now) and are taking the opportunity this talk page gives to tell you they are not happy with your inclusion. MRSC • Talk 19:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Owain, you know full well all this 'historic' stuff has long been discredited by a range of academic citations used on articles such as Historic counties of England. The reason this was included in the original template is because at the time of its creation, these sources had not been researched and some editors lied to the others. It is not current information, it does not belong here, it should not be in the current template or this replacement. Your comments on this talk page are just a shameless attempt to give more airtime to your discredited views. 13:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
What are our thoughts on this being automated? It is mostly done by regions, but I seem to remember there being small exceptions (aside from the South East split). If we have a good schedule of these exceptions it can be factored-in. Does anyone have a such a list? MRSC • Talk 00:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
{{infobox England place| |Latitude= 54.326069 |Longitude= -2.745048 |Place= Kendal |Population = 27,521 ([[United Kingdom Census 2001|2001 Census]]) |District= [[South Lakeland]] |County= [[Cumbria]] |Region= [[North West England]] |Ceremonial= [[Cumbria]] |Traditional= [[Westmorland]] |Constituency= [[Westmorland and Lonsdale (UK Parliament constituency)|Westmorland and Lonsdale]] |PostalTown= KENDAL |PostCode= LA9 |DiallingCode= 01539 |GridReference= SD515925 |Euro= [[North West England (European Parliament constituency)|North West England]] |Police= [[Cumbria Constabulary]] }} </td><td valign="top"> {{Infobox UK place | official_name= Kendal | population= 27,521 ([[United Kingdom Census 2001|2001 Census]]) | country= England | os_grid_reference= SD515925 | latitude= 54.326069 | longitude= -2.745048 | post_town= KENDAL | postcode_area= LA | postcode_district= LA9 | dial_code= 01539 | constituency_westminster= [[Westmorland and Lonsdale (UK Parliament constituency)|Westmorland and Lonsdale]] | police= Cumbria | fire= Cumbria | civil_parish= Kendal | shire_district= [[South Lakeland]] | shire_county= [[Cumbria]] | historic_county= [[Westmorland]] | region= North West England }} |
Some thoughts:
Owain ( talk) 10:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I re-iterate that the ceremonial county should be removed from the administration section and placed alongside the historic county information in an 'other' section as neither have any administrative role. This is consistent with the existing template. Why is this being constantly reverted? Owain ( talk) 13:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
How about including a section for the Scottish Sheriffdom? MRM 13:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Another suggestion, but I fully understand if this one ought not to be included. How about including religion. For example, in the Outer Hebrides, Lewis and Harris are primarily Protestant but Uist is primarily Catholic. Could be useful, but could also be rather controversial. MRM 11:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Template:Infobox England place with UK flag for UK map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Pit-yacker 16:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I've made this automatic for Scotland and Wales, but left it manual for England just now. MRSC • Talk 07:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Of the regions I've done so far, all but East Midlands work by using data already in the template. According to this schedule only Glossop is an exception in the E Midlands, so I've used official_name to exclude that settlement only. I would imagine there may be a few settlements, i.e. suburbs of Glossop that will also be affected and they will need to be added to this template in the same way for it to work. MRSC • Talk 10:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
For the split districts of Hart and Vale of White Horse I've taken a different approach and instead made these default to {{{ambulance_service}}} which can then be added manually in the article. Everything else works automatically. MRSC • Talk 12:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, the split of these districts is:
This will need to be added to the documentation as well as the situation for Glossop. MRSC • Talk 17:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to test the template out in a variety of place articles to make sure it works. We should look to documenting all the possible permutations. Some work has already been done on that here. MRSC • Talk 12:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
How clever are bots? Could one look at articles linking to template:Infobox England place and convert the syntax such as 'place=Cambridge' to 'official_name=Cambridge', add 'country=England' etc. Does anyone know how to create/request this? The specification would have to be very detailed, perhaps this is more a job for AWB, which I've also never used. Anyone any idea if that would help? MRSC • Talk 19:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Here are the number of instances of the current templates:
Around 2,500 is quite a few! MRSC • Talk 20:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Pit-yacker 23:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The Police & Ambulance for Cleethorpes in the new Infobox don't match what's in the old Infobox. WOSlinker 22:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
{{infobox England place| |Latitude= 53.553352 |Longitude= -0.021558 |Place= Cleethorpes |Population = 34,907 (2001 census) |District= [[North East Lincolnshire]] |Region= [[Yorkshire and the Humber]] |Police= [[Humberside Police]] |Ceremonial= [[Lincolnshire]] |Traditional= [[Lincolnshire]] |Constituency= [[Cleethorpes (UK Parliament constituency)|Cleethorpes]] |PostalTown= CLEETHORPES |PostCode= DN35 |DiallingCode= 01472 |GridReference= TA310081 |Euro= [[Yorkshire and the Humber (European Parliament constituency)|Yorkshire and the Humber]] }} |
|
Came across Template:Infobox Sheffield place this whilst having a wander. Can we merge this in as well? Regan123 00:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The same for Template:Infobox Tyne and Wear place? Pit-yacker 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Instead of having uk_latitude, coor_latitude, london_latitude and manchester_latitude & their associated longitude, why not just have latitude & longitude and have another parameter called maptype?
maptype could then be set to nomap, United Kingdom (default value, so not required to be set), Greater London or Greater Manchester.
Would also make it simpler to add further map images.
WOSlinker 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
}}<!-- ***** Dynamic map ***** --> {{#if:{{{latitude|}}}|<tr><td colspan="2" align="center"> {{#switch: {{{maptype|United Kingdom}}} | nomap = <!-- No Map --> | United Kingdom = {{location map|United Kingdom|label=|position=center|width=150|lat={{{latitude|}}}|long={{{longitude|}}}|caption=|float=}} | Greater London = {{location map|Greater London|label=|position=center|width=290|lat={{{latitude|}}}|long={{{longitude|}}}|caption=|float=}} | Greater Manchester = {{location map|Greater Manchester|label=|position=center|width=290|lat={{{latitude|}}}|long={{{longitude|}}}|caption=|float=}} }} {{Coor title d|{{{latitude}}}|N|{{{longitude}}}|E|region:GB_type:city}} </td> </tr> }}<!-- ***** Population ***** -->
If anyone wants to rename the template again, please discuss it first. Simply doing a page move, without moving the look-up tables will break it. MRSC • Talk 07:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This is failure to assume to good faith. Look above at this talk page, look at all the extensive discussions that have gone into this template from a range of editors. It is a fine piece of collaboration. Then look at the things you are saying. MRSC • Talk 07:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
For the first time in my life I'm going to have to agree with Mais oui!! This may well be a worthwhile exercise if all of our concerns are addressed, but at the moment it seems like MRSC's pet project and he will reject all criticism or attempts to improve it. I suggested a non-controversial addition to the template to make it work like the existing ones do, nobody disagreed with any of my points or even bothered to reply in three days so I made the change and was promptly reverted. This is not the way to build a comprehensive replacement for the existing British templates. Owain ( talk) 09:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've taken what Owain has said to heart and conducted a review of all amendments, both suggested and actioned, since the template was created:
User | Amendment | Result |
---|---|---|
User:Djr xi | add Greater Manchester map | implemented |
User:Djr xi | change country from link to value | implemented |
User:Djr xi | change London borough from link to value | implemented |
User:Djr xi | automate EU constituency | implemented |
User:Mais oui! | delete template | not done; unanimous TFD vote to KEEP |
User:Djr xi | rename westminster_constituency to westminster | not done |
User:Mholland | add cornish language | implemented |
User:Morrismaciver | add languages spoken | implemented |
User:Regan123 | automate fire and police | implemented |
User:Djr xi | automate London Assembly constituency | implemented |
User:Jhamez84 | UK expanded to United Kingdom | implemented |
User:Jhamez84 | change Machester map | implemented |
User:Jhamez84 | parish council changed to parish | implemented |
User:Regan123 | automate constituent country | not done |
User:Ddstretch | remove parish_status field | implemented |
User:Djr xi | rename area_code to dial_code | implemented |
User:WOSlinker | add categories | implemented |
User:Owain | add 'historic counties' | not done; rejected by User:Mais oui!, User:Ddstretch, User:MRSC, User:Djr xi |
User:Regan123 | automate ambulance | implemented |
User:Owain | insert ceremonial counties for all | not done; rejected by User:Ddstretch, User:MRSC |
User:Morrismaciver | add sheriffdom | not yet done |
User:WOSlinker | combine maps into one | implemented |
User:Mais oui! | page move | implemented |
User:Mais oui! | retain static Scottish maps | implemented |
User:Mais oui! | include Northern Ireland | in discussion |
Based on this, I do not think his words are fair or justified. If there is someone who isn't listening, it isn't me. MRSC • Talk 14:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The point is I am not trying to have anything controversial "added". If this template is supposed to be a replacement for the existing ones, then all I am asking for is that the existing fields (that are used on 2500+ articles) are carried over into this new template. Any attempt to blanket change articles to use this template will result in the deliberate loss of verifiable information which is clearly influenced by a POV viewpoint. I am also asking that the layout be modified to place the ceremonial and historic county information explicitly in their own section (as is currently the case with the existing templates). This allows them to be easily compared between articles, rather than having the ceremonial field appear and disappear depending on the local government situation. Also, its present location in the "administration" section is misleading. In point of fact Jhamez84 agrees that these fields should be present, but not in the administration section, which is exactly what I am proposing. Owain ( talk) 10:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Another option would be a straw poll. Whilst consensus is very important it is also important to recognise consensus can change. Maybe it is time to confirm or change the consensus? Regan123 22:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
MRSC, could you please tell us, as clearly and succinctly as possible, exactly why you have created this template? What are the weaknesses with the 4 existing templates, as you see it? As far as I am aware you have not had any problems with any of them prior to now, so exactly why are you now engaged in trying to delete our long-standing templates? We deserve to know your objective(s). -- Mais oui! 10:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Any good reasons not to have one template? MRSC • Talk 11:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I can only think of one at the moment, there is a significant chance (more than most times in the past) that Scotland could leave the UK in the near future, but I'm sure that we could either adapt the UK one or keep the current Scotland one (without deleting it if this one becomes the standard) for that eventuality. While I would, from a personal and nationalistic pov prefer separate ones for the UK countries, from a Wiki neutral pov, I have to agree that under the current position, it is best to have a UK one.
Would there be any barriers to creating an EU-wide one? MRM 15:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there a desire to add Northern Ireland to the infobox? MRSC • Talk 13:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
On thing that both Template:Infobox Place Ireland & Template:Infobox City have is the option to include a website. Perhaps this addition might be considered. WOSlinker 21:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a comparison between Template:Infobox Irish Place and Template:Infobox UK place for Belfast. WOSlinker 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
{{Infobox Irish Place| name = Belfast | gaeilge = Béal Feirste | scots = Bilfawst | crest image = Belfast city CoA painting.png | motto = Pro Tanto Quid Retribuamus <br>"What shall we give in return for so much" | map image = NorthernIrelandBelfast.png | pin coords = left: 158px; top: 81px | north coord = 54.596 | west coord = 5.914 | area = 115 km² | province = Ulster | county = [[County Antrim]] | NI district = [[Belfast City Council|Belfast]]| UK constituency = [[Belfast North (UK Parliament constituency)|Belfast North]]</br>[[Belfast South (UK Parliament constituency)|Belfast South]]</br>[[Belfast East (UK Parliament constituency)|Belfast East]]</br>[[Belfast West (UK Parliament constituency)|Belfast West]]| EU constituency = [[Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency)|Northern Ireland]]| population = 276,459 | population note = <br/><small>[[Belfast Metropolitan Area|Metropolitan Area]]:<br> 579,276 </small> | stdcode = 028, +44 28| posttown = Belfast| postcode = BT1-BT17, BT29 (part of), BT58| census yr = 2001 | web = www.belfastcity.gov.uk | |}} |
|
|
I'm going to add the remaing fields for NI. It can't do any harm, the worst thing that can happen is that they will be unused. It will not affect the rest of the template. I suppose I should move the template back to its original name? MRSC • Talk 06:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Preumably the red locator dot functionality, as indicated in the link I gave above will be, or is, included on this template? -- Mal 00:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying to get my head round AWB. From a brief trial of its features, what I think might be a good technique is updating articles on a district-by-district basis as that is the lowest level that the structure will be the same and there will be the most common elements that can be pre-selected; the rest will be picked up or discarded from the original syntax. Has anyone had any success constructing the arguments? MRSC • Talk 13:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This is currently included only where a place is not in a shire or metropolitan county. Instead, this should be included in an "other" section on all articles.
Support
Oppose
This is currently not included. Instead, this should be included in an "other" section on all articles.
Support
Oppose
Is it possible that people could put an explanation here? Owain ( talk) 10:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Making Ceremonial County compulsory merely brings duplication to those articles which already have county in some other form. I thought part of the idea of this infobox was to reduce the size of a box that currently overwhelms many of the articles. I'm currently abstaining on Historical County - in those cases where there is no change it should definitely stay out - if we must have it, perhaps there should be some sort of match that leaves it out when they are equal? As for the cases where it is different, in such cases, AFAICT there are sometimes numerous historical counties, and these changes have often been made at various points throughout time not just 1974! Surely this suggests dates should be provided - in which case it starts to get silly. This also raises the issue of what we regard as an historical county. Is Cleveland a historical county? Also how are tiny "outposts" of a county verified? Pit-yacker 15:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
previous_division_name = County of London previous_division_end_year = 1965 previous_division_name1 = Middlesex previous_division_end_year1 = 1889
Owain, we've already had the debate and you wouldn't accept the result! This straw poll is intended to reinforce it. You had the opportunity for debate but instead starting making unfounded accuasations. MRSC • Talk 15:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
In response to MRM: The previous Wikipedia consensus was to refer to them as "traditional counties", but it was gradually changed to "historic counties" as per Encyclopædia Britannica. The true legal name is "Ancient or geographic counties", but this is a bit of a mouthful, so "Ancient county" is another possible compromise name. As regards the county of London, that was never a historic/ancient county, but an administrative county as per the LGA 1889, so stating "Middlesex until 1889, then London until 1965" wouldn't be strictly accurate. The ancient or geographic county is still Middlesex. Owain ( talk) 18:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the notion that we need to be succinct in the infobox would tend to rule out unnecessary information. The inclusion of information which is poorly defined would also tend to be inappropriate, especially since any attempt to clarify the cases where a place has been in a number of counties in the past would be carried out in the main text if so desired. For this reason, I believe it should be omitted. Any desire to give the counties in which a place was allocated during its history should, I think, result in it being placed in an appropriate section in the main text of an article. It is, for example, what I am attempting to do with what could also be called the "historic parish" information. I would not think appropriate to include "historic parish" or "ecclesiastical parish" or even "historic ecclesiastical parish" in this infobox, yet these might be as equally important to many local people as the "historic county". Indeed, for some of the purposes of tracing family history and registrations of births, marriages, and deaths, it might even be more useful. DDStretch (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
As everyone who has been involved in this template seems to have voted (and some who haven't) can we draw some conclusions? As far as I can see the consensus that was already evident from earlier discussions is reconfirmed. MRSC • Talk 11:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been directed here from discussions on a London place template. But am I in the right place? Is the intention to have the same template for all places? The same template for a city as for an informal, non-official area, such as Soho and Bloomsbury? How would that work? Would people have the option to not include information such as Services, which are the responsibility of a local authority, rather than a non-official neighbourhood? SilkTork 08:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I like to print out articles on areas that I am visiting. I just printed out Brighton and was surprised at the amount of space taken by the Infobox. This appears to be because the OS grid reference has a link, and the link is printed out in full, expanding the width of the box to 3/4 of the page. Is there a way of preventing this from happening? SilkTork 22:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I've provisionally upgraded the infobox at the Shaw and Crompton article. I think it looks good, but have we considered including somehow a message that could say "Shown within X" depending on what map is selected? (So X being Greater Manchester in this case).
I think this would be a significant improvement in providing a wider national and international context, but I'm unsure if it is technically feasible. If it is feasible, I think it should use the "<small></small>" text, and with X being linked. Jhamez84 01:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
As NI is now fully functional, I'm going to move this template back to Template:Infobox UK place and fix the incoming links. MRSC • Talk 06:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)