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. |
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. |
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'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)
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 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)
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)
(general comment) Screen-shots of what you're seeing might help. Andy Mabbett 09:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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):
{{Infobox Irish Place| name = Lurgan | gaeilge = An Lorgain | crest image = | motto = | map image = NorthernIrelandCraigavonBorough.png | pin coords = left: 126px; top: 101px | north coord = 54.441 | west coord = 6.356 | area = | elevation = | province = [[Ulster]] | county = [[County Armagh]] | NI district = [[Craigavon Borough Council|Craigavon Borough]] | UK constituency = [[Upper Bann (UK Parliament constituency)|Upper Bann]]| EU constituency = [[Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency)|Northern Ireland]]| stdcode = 028, +44 28| posttown = [[Craigavon]]| postcode = BT64-67| population = 24,000 | census yr = est | web = | |}} |
|
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Is it possible to have a new optional field of area, please? TerriersFan 02:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
|area_footnotes= <ref> </ref> |area_total_sq_mi= |area_total_km2 =
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{convert|100|mi|km|}}-->100 miles (160 km)
{{convert|100|mi|km|abbr=on}}-->100 mi (160 km)
For more information see: {{ Pop density mi2 to km2}} and {{ mi to km}}
Regards, MJCdetroit 13:28, 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...{{convert|1000|mi|km|abbr=on}}-->1,000 mi (1,600 km)— MJCdetroit 14:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Any budding calibrators able to bring Image:Somerset outline map with UK.png to life? Jza84 00:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
<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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. |
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. |
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. |
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'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)
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 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)
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)
(general comment) Screen-shots of what you're seeing might help. Andy Mabbett 09:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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):
{{Infobox Irish Place| name = Lurgan | gaeilge = An Lorgain | crest image = | motto = | map image = NorthernIrelandCraigavonBorough.png | pin coords = left: 126px; top: 101px | north coord = 54.441 | west coord = 6.356 | area = | elevation = | province = [[Ulster]] | county = [[County Armagh]] | NI district = [[Craigavon Borough Council|Craigavon Borough]] | UK constituency = [[Upper Bann (UK Parliament constituency)|Upper Bann]]| EU constituency = [[Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency)|Northern Ireland]]| stdcode = 028, +44 28| posttown = [[Craigavon]]| postcode = BT64-67| population = 24,000 | census yr = est | web = | |}} |
|
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Is it possible to have a new optional field of area, please? TerriersFan 02:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
|area_footnotes= <ref> </ref> |area_total_sq_mi= |area_total_km2 =
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{convert|100|mi|km|}}-->100 miles (160 km)
{{convert|100|mi|km|abbr=on}}-->100 mi (160 km)
For more information see: {{ Pop density mi2 to km2}} and {{ mi to km}}
Regards, MJCdetroit 13:28, 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...{{convert|1000|mi|km|abbr=on}}-->1,000 mi (1,600 km)— MJCdetroit 14:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Any budding calibrators able to bring Image:Somerset outline map with UK.png to life? Jza84 00:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
<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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. |