This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
All done! :) Orderinchaos 23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Suburbs of Lake Macquarie, such as Buttaba, New South Wales have a different infobox. Is this a concern?-- Grahamec 01:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
When someone uses this template with "state=Victoria", the template links to the Victoria disambiguation page rather than Victoria (Australia). I'm not a member of WikiProject Australia, so I don't feel it's my place to edit the template, since it might accidentally disrupt quite a few Australian articles — but I wanted to point it out. -- Wayne Miller 15:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I've encountered a similar problem at Bronte, New South Wales with links to the Waverley disambiguation page which I think should point to either Waverley Municipal Council or Waverley, New South Wales. Please can someone help? CarolGray 17:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, I notice that Municipality of Strathfield used to have the percentage of Australian born residences in it's infobox. This is now missing. It's a useful metric, could we get this included into this infobox? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Could we have counties as an optional field with a link back to Cadastral divisions of Australia? Perhaps also the parish of the county, or hundred for SA. These were widely used in the nineteenth century and are still on land titles & geneology records -- Astrokey 44 01:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how this is a useful parameter, remembering that the infobox is intended to summarise the most important facts of an article. -- cj | talk 02:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
From my perspective - choose - either in the info box or in the prose - whatever the majority decide but don't just drop this great work. Counties and parishes are still used in property and industrial legal documents and they represent both a current and a historical fact which is most definitely encyclopedic.-- VS talk 06:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think they should definatley be included. They are an important historical record and as stated above, The Geographical Names Board considers them useful enough to include in their descriptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.148.5.118 ( talk • contribs)
type
parameter, similar to how town and lga are defined for example.
◄
§ĉҺɑʀκs
► 11:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Gladstone Error: |state= not defined (
help) | |
---|---|
Location |
|
Is it possible to display a direction properly with the distance#/location# parameters? Using near-dd seems overkill for country towns, but putting distances without a direction doesn't provide the full info either. See for example the box on Gladstone, South Australia which currently renders as:
by putting the distance as part of the location# -- Scott Davis Talk 22:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
dir3
" value has been entered, and therefore direction shows as "from". The dir variable is free text so more precise directions such as NE or SSW can be entered as well.
◄
§ĉҺɑʀκs
► 07:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Some recent changes to this template apparently are creating spurious links in the MediaWiki link database, which among other things are polluting WP:DPM. For example, any use of the template with the parameter "city=Perth" is showing up as a link to the disambiguation page Perth, even though it appears that some effort has been made to avoid this and to route links to the correct page Perth, Western Australia. See, for example, Hamersley, Western Australia—there is no visible link to Perth on this page, but it still ends up listed on Special:Whatlinkshere/Perth, along with dozens of other W.A. locality articles. A similar problem seems to exist with articles about ACT localities, which all create links to the disambiguation page Act, even though there is no visible link to Act on the pages. It would be appreciated if someone who is sufficiently familiar with the esoteric template techniques being used here could correct these problems. -- Russ (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
For the vast majority of cities, towns and suburbs, the time zone can be automatically calculated from the state variable. Would it be possible to automatically display the timezone, but ONLY in cases where "timezone" and "timezone-dst" are left blank - to allow for places such as Broken Hill, New South Wales and Eucla, Western Australia to "override" these defaults if needed? -- Chuq 00:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, a suggestion/question.
I have noticed that all federal electorate articles are titled "Division of .."" and state electorate articles are titled "Electoral district of ...", seemingly without exception. When filling out the electorate sections of the info box, I add [[Division of Indi|Indi]] to get Indi to appear. Would it be possible (or desirable) to code the box so that I could simply type Indi and have Indi appear in the box with a link to the article? Cheers-- Mattinbgn/ talk 08:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
That Electoral box ( Template:Infobox Australian Electoral) is real good. it should be merged into this box with a different type code. it seems to have a fair number of similar fields. TheJosh 12:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I had to revert back to Scharks's last version as a number of key features had somehow gotten broken (most notably, suburb direction boxes had ceased to display). Please be careful to test any changes prior to making them "live" as this template appears on several thousand pages. Orderinchaos 14:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The NZeders are considering adopting a version of this template for their articles at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board#Infoboxes for NZ towns and cities etc. At present, Kiwi place articles use a convuluted table code far worse than that which we eradicated. Would the collaborators here be interested in helping develop a Kiwi version, if they decide it's the type they want?-- cj | talk 02:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The automatic establishment date categorisation puts the establishment date first in the list of categories at the bottom of the page, which is not appropriate. The defining category should come first, ie category:Towns in Western Australia or whatever. RegRCN 08:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This may be nitpicking but we probably should get it right. When placing the template on Northern Territory towns and adding the Territory electorate, it appears on the page with "State District" not "Territory District". See Adelaide River, Northern Territory for an example. Can this be fixed or do we need to live with it. Of course, the Territory could get its act together and apply for statehood and save us the trouble. :-) -- Mattinbgn/ talk 01:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
City of Melbourne | |
---|---|
Could we have space for flags and coat of arms for the capital cities? similar to how it is done on Template:Australia state or territory -- Astrokey 44 10:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Astrokey44 has expanded information (climate, LGAs, electorates, postcodes, etc) included in the infoboxes for the capital city articles which is indicated by the fields table to be valid only for towns and suburbs. Is the table incorrect or should the changes be reverted?-- cj | talk 13:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Adelaide#Station Infoboxes that participants here may be interested in, with a suggestion to develop a standard infobox along the lines of this and {{ Infobox Australian Road}} for railway stations.-- cj | talk 15:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted whether the distances used are road or air as they can be quite different. [4] says the road distance from Melbourne to Perth is 3456km, while [5] gives the air distance as 2733km -- Astrokey 44 02:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems to have become common practice to put each place in an Establishment Category eg. Category:1991 Establishments. Would it be possible for this to be done automatically or will it just be left manual? Todd661 10:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that the Category:Settlements by year of establishment category structure has (mainly) be created, would it be possible to recode this template to put Australian places into the appropriate settlements established in year x category? I know that there are a several 20th century categories that still need to be created and I would be happy to to this once they have some articles. Greenshed 22:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Something I just noticed about this field. At the moment, the Sydney entry has | est = [[Australia Day|January 26]], [[1788]]. This is a nice way to present the date, but then the categorisation doesn't work since it is only looking for a year. Perhaps the heading in the infobox should specify that this field is for year of establishment instead of simply "Established". Or something else needs to be done. I don't know. - 52 Pickup 09:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Three issues with Local Goverment Areas and categories
I think we need another type for region. Adelaide Hills would be a region, as would Yorke Peninsula.
(reset) If a region has no clearly-definable area, then it also has no clearly-definable population - so there goes 2 useful bits of information that cannot be used. What does that leave? Postcodes? Electorates? At the worst you have nothing but a map, the region's name and the state that it is in (and state is sometimes redundant since that is in the article title anyway). If an infobox has no info, then it is simply a box. The only useful thing that you could safely add would be something like "major cities", but that means creating a new field. It's a nice idea, but it will not work for every region. And some people object strongly to the introduction of templates that do not significantly add to the article. For clear official regions, I have no objections at all. - 52 Pickup 12:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Due to no opposition to
Adelaide Hills, I have added region
to the template, although it is not documented anywhere but here (not on blank page or doc page yet). I will add full support for it (write in documentation, perhaps autocats) in a week or so if there are no objections.
I've just made a pushpin map for Australian locations. So if you give the co-ordinates, a location map will be generated, so separate static images for each location are not needed. For example:
The parameters are probably not yet spot-on, so if you want to tweak them, go to {{ Location map Australia}}. Once this is running properly, it could possibly be then used for the infobox, if no other image is given. - 52 Pickup 11:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I was going to raise a comment about the text size in this Infobox and suggest a slight reduction, but noticed in the archives that this has already been proposed in December last year. While the response appears to mostly be supportive, there obviously was no final consensus nor change as a consequence. Therefore I guess I am re-raising this proposal with my support, for two reasons:
line-height
) would reduce the length of a 'healthy' Infobox which can sometimes be as long or even longer than the place's article!Can we get a final consensus on this and have it implemented? SEO75 [ talk 05:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
style
attribute, or somehow avoiding having style="font-size: 90%"
on every table cell. And the font size issue is only a problem if the size is specified in points (pt) instead of pixels, percents or a constant.
<div style="font-size: 90%">
around the entire table code, but this does not take care of line height (although maybe that could also be placed in this div code). Perhaps the better way to do it, even though it would take a bit of work, is to implement style="infobox geography". Also, the html code used here should probably be wikified. -
52 Pickup 09:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC){| class="infobox vcard" cellpadding="4" style="width: 280px; font-size: 90%;"
User_talk:TheJosh/IAP is an example --
TheJosh 12:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)iap
. --
TheJosh 02:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Can we finally get some action on this please? -- TheJosh 04:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Can everyone who is interested in this box please leave a comment on User_talk:Orderinchaos/IAP related to the new design. -- TheJosh 11:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Orderinchaos, I don't like it. I don't like the division halfway down, and the sub-boxes need tweaking. -- TheJosh 05:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
New look applied, taken from User:Orderinchaos/IAP -- TheJosh 12:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I don't like the new look of the infobox. I only discovered it when I went to edit a page I'd been watching and things didn't look right. Specific crticisms are:
My measurements show that the new version of the infobox is roughly 82% of the previous one. I can certainly see the merit in reducing the size of the infobox but I think 90% is more reasonable. 82% is going a bit too far. -- AussieLegend 17:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you please put proposals like this on the Australian notice board or something? I had no idea what you were doing - and to be honest, the new box looks positively awful. The old text size was fine and there was nothing wrong with it, but yet again we have another example of people changing things that don't need changing. Please change it back. JRG 23:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with JRG, in that I prefer the old look much more and could not see a lot wrong with it. I have been following the conversation here and at OIC's page and I am aware that I seem to be in the minority with that view. The new look is OK when an image is included in the infobox, but there is no image the text in the box looks crowded into a tiny space and the box looks much too big in comparison to the tiny font. Some tests of the new look on articles without an image such as Sandstone, Western Australia may help. None of the above is in any way meant to denigrate the work of the developers of the infobox, who have put a lot of effort into the project. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 03:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it looks great and as said above, follows the style in other geo-infoboxes. Good work guys. Now if you could just get rid of those loc-x and loc-y fields and feed latitude/longitude into a pushpin map I'd be even happier. — Moondyne 04:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Mosman Park, Western Australia and Eastwood, New South Wales are two examples where the text looks cluttered because of multiple suburbs. This was fine under the old box - the small text makes it impossible to do. And to TheJosh, I don't care if there was consensus or not, I'm asking that decisions like this which affect a great deal of Australian articles be at least publicised on an Australia-wide basis. The correct place to do that is at AWNB, not just here. Thanks. JRG 06:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I've found similar issues as JRG regarding surrounding suburbs. eg Anna Bay, New South Wales. There were even a couple of articles such as Nelson Bay, New South Wales where single suburb names touch the edges of the infobox. The problem was that the size of the nested table had been set to 100%. This was the same setting as the old template but it wasn't an issue when font sizes were smaller. I've changed it to 95% which appears to have corrected the problem.
I'm on the fence with the new template. I think the older one looked better but the font sizes and line spacings meant that some infoboxes were much too large for their associated articles. It was especially noticeable on some of the pages that I edit such as Salamander Bay, New South Wales. As it stands now I think the new template is an impovement even though I'd like to see slightly better line spacings an a bit less bolding. Even with the line spacing fixed from what it was there is still a problem with superscripted characters, such as used by citations, in that when superscript is used the main text appears to be slightly below the level of the line heading. It's not an issue with larger line spacing but becomes noticieable with the smaller spacing. That said, it is possible to get around by moving citations into the main body of text. The bolding makes the box look clutterd but I can live with that. -- AussieLegend 09:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I've tried and failed to add more space between lines - anyone got any idea how to do this? Not much - about 2-3px would be fine - but would space it out a little more nicely. Orderinchaos 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Could we please have a small footnote field in the box so that references can be provided for things like climate statistics? These cannot be put properly in line because of the unit conversion. :: maelgwn - talk 22:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to come in late to this conversation, but couldn't we add a field for the BOM URL such as this one for Collie, Western Australia and have the link appear elegantly below the climate data. I would think a general principle should be to have a reference to the source material as close as possible to the relevant claim. We should be making it easy for readers to find the supporting information and avoid having them searching around the article to find the link to the supporting data unless it absolutely can't be avoided. I understand the point raised by The Josh, but in some cases it is easier to clearly state the climate information in the info box rather than write in prose that can sometimes be muddy and unclear. (especially when I am writing :-)) Cheers, Mattinbgn\ talk 01:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I must say that i like the newest version. As it makes the articles less infobox focussed. However I am not a fan of the way the surrounding suburbs is organised. The box within the box doesn't do it for me. Is there a reason it is set up that way? Also a person above said that there was not much notice of the change. Possibly there could be a link to the talk page from the actual template...many templates do this. ..... Todd #661 09:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
url
area, as can be seen at the moment in
Margate, Queensland.line-height
, however the Infobox looks cramped as it is now, and more space needs to be added to avoid it looking that way.Anyone opposed to me changing this so that when someone enters "Bradfield" for example it produces Bradfield? The only problem I can foresee is if a user enters it manually, but I think we have coding elsewhere to cope with that eventuality (basically an ifexist then do this else do this), which I'd test before incorporation if the proposal is accepted, and could AWB the existing ones across to just the division name.
State gov are more complex - many articles don't exist so an ifexist test would fail, furthermore there is the complication of electorates with state name in brackets afterwards, and the NT/TAS use of "Electoral division of". It's a case of, may complicate the code for little extra benefit. Orderinchaos 09:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Special:Whatlinkshere/Nsw is being filled by our infobox. I can see what is going on - the link (but not one that is visible - see Ebor, New South Wales) is being transmitted as nsw which is from our state field - but why, and where? I've had a quick look and can't see it at all. Orderinchaos 03:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Some unilateral changes were made this morning which seem to have broken numerous instances of the template - a whole heap of fields were renamed, and I don't actually see the benefits of doing so. I have reverted the changes and hope those who wish to see them made can provide a rationale and reach consensus here. Orderinchaos 03:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey everyone, just a quick reminder to keep it simple please. Every time I look at this template, its another feature here, another feature there. Just my 2 cents. -- TheJosh 13:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is just me or not, but I have noticed that in some Queensland LGA infoboxes, some of the links at the bottom of infobox are unable to be clicked on. This applied to wikilinks and external links. Two boxes where I have noticed the problem are Gatton Shire Council and Esk Shire Council. Any ideas? -- Mattinbgn\ talk 22:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
While trying to fix the above problem I noticed that an undocumented field existed in the template. The field is called "imagesize" and affects the width of the generic image of the locality. I've documented it now but I have to wonder how many other undocumented fields there are. -- AussieLegend 05:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
_noautocat
. That's to prevent cats on example pages. --
TheJosh 09:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi all,
I realise there's a worry about function creep on this template... Nevertheless I'd like to ask your opinion on placing a field dedicated to acknowledging the local Aboriginal place name/local people of any given article. Many might see this as being overly politically correct but it is standard practice in Australia to do so in some form or another ( see first enumerated guideline), it counters systemic bias and provides useful and relevant information.
Just a thought. Witty Lama 15:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Does the title really need to be shown? It's redundant, and just makes the infobox bigger and bloatier. See Point Lonsdale, Victoria - the title is already in big letters at the top of the page, and in the opening sentence. The bar with "Point Lonsdale Victoria" doesn't seem to add anything at all. Stevage 04:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Updated it - the convert templates actually go through about 11 rounds of calculations each, which is fine for a single use but was slowing IAP quite a bit and was bulking up the code. I substed it multiple times, removing optional variables along the way, and have replaced most instances of convert with the end result. As the display is exactly the same, few will notice. Orderinchaos 05:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 9 |
All done! :) Orderinchaos 23:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Suburbs of Lake Macquarie, such as Buttaba, New South Wales have a different infobox. Is this a concern?-- Grahamec 01:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
When someone uses this template with "state=Victoria", the template links to the Victoria disambiguation page rather than Victoria (Australia). I'm not a member of WikiProject Australia, so I don't feel it's my place to edit the template, since it might accidentally disrupt quite a few Australian articles — but I wanted to point it out. -- Wayne Miller 15:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I've encountered a similar problem at Bronte, New South Wales with links to the Waverley disambiguation page which I think should point to either Waverley Municipal Council or Waverley, New South Wales. Please can someone help? CarolGray 17:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi all, I notice that Municipality of Strathfield used to have the percentage of Australian born residences in it's infobox. This is now missing. It's a useful metric, could we get this included into this infobox? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Could we have counties as an optional field with a link back to Cadastral divisions of Australia? Perhaps also the parish of the county, or hundred for SA. These were widely used in the nineteenth century and are still on land titles & geneology records -- Astrokey 44 01:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how this is a useful parameter, remembering that the infobox is intended to summarise the most important facts of an article. -- cj | talk 02:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
From my perspective - choose - either in the info box or in the prose - whatever the majority decide but don't just drop this great work. Counties and parishes are still used in property and industrial legal documents and they represent both a current and a historical fact which is most definitely encyclopedic.-- VS talk 06:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think they should definatley be included. They are an important historical record and as stated above, The Geographical Names Board considers them useful enough to include in their descriptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.148.5.118 ( talk • contribs)
type
parameter, similar to how town and lga are defined for example.
◄
§ĉҺɑʀκs
► 11:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Gladstone Error: |state= not defined (
help) | |
---|---|
Location |
|
Is it possible to display a direction properly with the distance#/location# parameters? Using near-dd seems overkill for country towns, but putting distances without a direction doesn't provide the full info either. See for example the box on Gladstone, South Australia which currently renders as:
by putting the distance as part of the location# -- Scott Davis Talk 22:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
dir3
" value has been entered, and therefore direction shows as "from". The dir variable is free text so more precise directions such as NE or SSW can be entered as well.
◄
§ĉҺɑʀκs
► 07:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Some recent changes to this template apparently are creating spurious links in the MediaWiki link database, which among other things are polluting WP:DPM. For example, any use of the template with the parameter "city=Perth" is showing up as a link to the disambiguation page Perth, even though it appears that some effort has been made to avoid this and to route links to the correct page Perth, Western Australia. See, for example, Hamersley, Western Australia—there is no visible link to Perth on this page, but it still ends up listed on Special:Whatlinkshere/Perth, along with dozens of other W.A. locality articles. A similar problem seems to exist with articles about ACT localities, which all create links to the disambiguation page Act, even though there is no visible link to Act on the pages. It would be appreciated if someone who is sufficiently familiar with the esoteric template techniques being used here could correct these problems. -- Russ (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
For the vast majority of cities, towns and suburbs, the time zone can be automatically calculated from the state variable. Would it be possible to automatically display the timezone, but ONLY in cases where "timezone" and "timezone-dst" are left blank - to allow for places such as Broken Hill, New South Wales and Eucla, Western Australia to "override" these defaults if needed? -- Chuq 00:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, a suggestion/question.
I have noticed that all federal electorate articles are titled "Division of .."" and state electorate articles are titled "Electoral district of ...", seemingly without exception. When filling out the electorate sections of the info box, I add [[Division of Indi|Indi]] to get Indi to appear. Would it be possible (or desirable) to code the box so that I could simply type Indi and have Indi appear in the box with a link to the article? Cheers-- Mattinbgn/ talk 08:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
That Electoral box ( Template:Infobox Australian Electoral) is real good. it should be merged into this box with a different type code. it seems to have a fair number of similar fields. TheJosh 12:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I had to revert back to Scharks's last version as a number of key features had somehow gotten broken (most notably, suburb direction boxes had ceased to display). Please be careful to test any changes prior to making them "live" as this template appears on several thousand pages. Orderinchaos 14:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The NZeders are considering adopting a version of this template for their articles at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board#Infoboxes for NZ towns and cities etc. At present, Kiwi place articles use a convuluted table code far worse than that which we eradicated. Would the collaborators here be interested in helping develop a Kiwi version, if they decide it's the type they want?-- cj | talk 02:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The automatic establishment date categorisation puts the establishment date first in the list of categories at the bottom of the page, which is not appropriate. The defining category should come first, ie category:Towns in Western Australia or whatever. RegRCN 08:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This may be nitpicking but we probably should get it right. When placing the template on Northern Territory towns and adding the Territory electorate, it appears on the page with "State District" not "Territory District". See Adelaide River, Northern Territory for an example. Can this be fixed or do we need to live with it. Of course, the Territory could get its act together and apply for statehood and save us the trouble. :-) -- Mattinbgn/ talk 01:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
City of Melbourne | |
---|---|
Could we have space for flags and coat of arms for the capital cities? similar to how it is done on Template:Australia state or territory -- Astrokey 44 10:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Astrokey44 has expanded information (climate, LGAs, electorates, postcodes, etc) included in the infoboxes for the capital city articles which is indicated by the fields table to be valid only for towns and suburbs. Is the table incorrect or should the changes be reverted?-- cj | talk 13:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Adelaide#Station Infoboxes that participants here may be interested in, with a suggestion to develop a standard infobox along the lines of this and {{ Infobox Australian Road}} for railway stations.-- cj | talk 15:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted whether the distances used are road or air as they can be quite different. [4] says the road distance from Melbourne to Perth is 3456km, while [5] gives the air distance as 2733km -- Astrokey 44 02:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems to have become common practice to put each place in an Establishment Category eg. Category:1991 Establishments. Would it be possible for this to be done automatically or will it just be left manual? Todd661 10:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Now that the Category:Settlements by year of establishment category structure has (mainly) be created, would it be possible to recode this template to put Australian places into the appropriate settlements established in year x category? I know that there are a several 20th century categories that still need to be created and I would be happy to to this once they have some articles. Greenshed 22:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Something I just noticed about this field. At the moment, the Sydney entry has | est = [[Australia Day|January 26]], [[1788]]. This is a nice way to present the date, but then the categorisation doesn't work since it is only looking for a year. Perhaps the heading in the infobox should specify that this field is for year of establishment instead of simply "Established". Or something else needs to be done. I don't know. - 52 Pickup 09:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Three issues with Local Goverment Areas and categories
I think we need another type for region. Adelaide Hills would be a region, as would Yorke Peninsula.
(reset) If a region has no clearly-definable area, then it also has no clearly-definable population - so there goes 2 useful bits of information that cannot be used. What does that leave? Postcodes? Electorates? At the worst you have nothing but a map, the region's name and the state that it is in (and state is sometimes redundant since that is in the article title anyway). If an infobox has no info, then it is simply a box. The only useful thing that you could safely add would be something like "major cities", but that means creating a new field. It's a nice idea, but it will not work for every region. And some people object strongly to the introduction of templates that do not significantly add to the article. For clear official regions, I have no objections at all. - 52 Pickup 12:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Due to no opposition to
Adelaide Hills, I have added region
to the template, although it is not documented anywhere but here (not on blank page or doc page yet). I will add full support for it (write in documentation, perhaps autocats) in a week or so if there are no objections.
I've just made a pushpin map for Australian locations. So if you give the co-ordinates, a location map will be generated, so separate static images for each location are not needed. For example:
The parameters are probably not yet spot-on, so if you want to tweak them, go to {{ Location map Australia}}. Once this is running properly, it could possibly be then used for the infobox, if no other image is given. - 52 Pickup 11:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I was going to raise a comment about the text size in this Infobox and suggest a slight reduction, but noticed in the archives that this has already been proposed in December last year. While the response appears to mostly be supportive, there obviously was no final consensus nor change as a consequence. Therefore I guess I am re-raising this proposal with my support, for two reasons:
line-height
) would reduce the length of a 'healthy' Infobox which can sometimes be as long or even longer than the place's article!Can we get a final consensus on this and have it implemented? SEO75 [ talk 05:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
style
attribute, or somehow avoiding having style="font-size: 90%"
on every table cell. And the font size issue is only a problem if the size is specified in points (pt) instead of pixels, percents or a constant.
<div style="font-size: 90%">
around the entire table code, but this does not take care of line height (although maybe that could also be placed in this div code). Perhaps the better way to do it, even though it would take a bit of work, is to implement style="infobox geography". Also, the html code used here should probably be wikified. -
52 Pickup 09:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC){| class="infobox vcard" cellpadding="4" style="width: 280px; font-size: 90%;"
User_talk:TheJosh/IAP is an example --
TheJosh 12:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)iap
. --
TheJosh 02:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Can we finally get some action on this please? -- TheJosh 04:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Can everyone who is interested in this box please leave a comment on User_talk:Orderinchaos/IAP related to the new design. -- TheJosh 11:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Orderinchaos, I don't like it. I don't like the division halfway down, and the sub-boxes need tweaking. -- TheJosh 05:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
New look applied, taken from User:Orderinchaos/IAP -- TheJosh 12:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I don't like the new look of the infobox. I only discovered it when I went to edit a page I'd been watching and things didn't look right. Specific crticisms are:
My measurements show that the new version of the infobox is roughly 82% of the previous one. I can certainly see the merit in reducing the size of the infobox but I think 90% is more reasonable. 82% is going a bit too far. -- AussieLegend 17:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you please put proposals like this on the Australian notice board or something? I had no idea what you were doing - and to be honest, the new box looks positively awful. The old text size was fine and there was nothing wrong with it, but yet again we have another example of people changing things that don't need changing. Please change it back. JRG 23:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with JRG, in that I prefer the old look much more and could not see a lot wrong with it. I have been following the conversation here and at OIC's page and I am aware that I seem to be in the minority with that view. The new look is OK when an image is included in the infobox, but there is no image the text in the box looks crowded into a tiny space and the box looks much too big in comparison to the tiny font. Some tests of the new look on articles without an image such as Sandstone, Western Australia may help. None of the above is in any way meant to denigrate the work of the developers of the infobox, who have put a lot of effort into the project. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 03:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it looks great and as said above, follows the style in other geo-infoboxes. Good work guys. Now if you could just get rid of those loc-x and loc-y fields and feed latitude/longitude into a pushpin map I'd be even happier. — Moondyne 04:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Mosman Park, Western Australia and Eastwood, New South Wales are two examples where the text looks cluttered because of multiple suburbs. This was fine under the old box - the small text makes it impossible to do. And to TheJosh, I don't care if there was consensus or not, I'm asking that decisions like this which affect a great deal of Australian articles be at least publicised on an Australia-wide basis. The correct place to do that is at AWNB, not just here. Thanks. JRG 06:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I've found similar issues as JRG regarding surrounding suburbs. eg Anna Bay, New South Wales. There were even a couple of articles such as Nelson Bay, New South Wales where single suburb names touch the edges of the infobox. The problem was that the size of the nested table had been set to 100%. This was the same setting as the old template but it wasn't an issue when font sizes were smaller. I've changed it to 95% which appears to have corrected the problem.
I'm on the fence with the new template. I think the older one looked better but the font sizes and line spacings meant that some infoboxes were much too large for their associated articles. It was especially noticeable on some of the pages that I edit such as Salamander Bay, New South Wales. As it stands now I think the new template is an impovement even though I'd like to see slightly better line spacings an a bit less bolding. Even with the line spacing fixed from what it was there is still a problem with superscripted characters, such as used by citations, in that when superscript is used the main text appears to be slightly below the level of the line heading. It's not an issue with larger line spacing but becomes noticieable with the smaller spacing. That said, it is possible to get around by moving citations into the main body of text. The bolding makes the box look clutterd but I can live with that. -- AussieLegend 09:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I've tried and failed to add more space between lines - anyone got any idea how to do this? Not much - about 2-3px would be fine - but would space it out a little more nicely. Orderinchaos 12:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Could we please have a small footnote field in the box so that references can be provided for things like climate statistics? These cannot be put properly in line because of the unit conversion. :: maelgwn - talk 22:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to come in late to this conversation, but couldn't we add a field for the BOM URL such as this one for Collie, Western Australia and have the link appear elegantly below the climate data. I would think a general principle should be to have a reference to the source material as close as possible to the relevant claim. We should be making it easy for readers to find the supporting information and avoid having them searching around the article to find the link to the supporting data unless it absolutely can't be avoided. I understand the point raised by The Josh, but in some cases it is easier to clearly state the climate information in the info box rather than write in prose that can sometimes be muddy and unclear. (especially when I am writing :-)) Cheers, Mattinbgn\ talk 01:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I must say that i like the newest version. As it makes the articles less infobox focussed. However I am not a fan of the way the surrounding suburbs is organised. The box within the box doesn't do it for me. Is there a reason it is set up that way? Also a person above said that there was not much notice of the change. Possibly there could be a link to the talk page from the actual template...many templates do this. ..... Todd #661 09:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
url
area, as can be seen at the moment in
Margate, Queensland.line-height
, however the Infobox looks cramped as it is now, and more space needs to be added to avoid it looking that way.Anyone opposed to me changing this so that when someone enters "Bradfield" for example it produces Bradfield? The only problem I can foresee is if a user enters it manually, but I think we have coding elsewhere to cope with that eventuality (basically an ifexist then do this else do this), which I'd test before incorporation if the proposal is accepted, and could AWB the existing ones across to just the division name.
State gov are more complex - many articles don't exist so an ifexist test would fail, furthermore there is the complication of electorates with state name in brackets afterwards, and the NT/TAS use of "Electoral division of". It's a case of, may complicate the code for little extra benefit. Orderinchaos 09:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Special:Whatlinkshere/Nsw is being filled by our infobox. I can see what is going on - the link (but not one that is visible - see Ebor, New South Wales) is being transmitted as nsw which is from our state field - but why, and where? I've had a quick look and can't see it at all. Orderinchaos 03:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Some unilateral changes were made this morning which seem to have broken numerous instances of the template - a whole heap of fields were renamed, and I don't actually see the benefits of doing so. I have reverted the changes and hope those who wish to see them made can provide a rationale and reach consensus here. Orderinchaos 03:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey everyone, just a quick reminder to keep it simple please. Every time I look at this template, its another feature here, another feature there. Just my 2 cents. -- TheJosh 13:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is just me or not, but I have noticed that in some Queensland LGA infoboxes, some of the links at the bottom of infobox are unable to be clicked on. This applied to wikilinks and external links. Two boxes where I have noticed the problem are Gatton Shire Council and Esk Shire Council. Any ideas? -- Mattinbgn\ talk 22:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
While trying to fix the above problem I noticed that an undocumented field existed in the template. The field is called "imagesize" and affects the width of the generic image of the locality. I've documented it now but I have to wonder how many other undocumented fields there are. -- AussieLegend 05:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
_noautocat
. That's to prevent cats on example pages. --
TheJosh 09:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi all,
I realise there's a worry about function creep on this template... Nevertheless I'd like to ask your opinion on placing a field dedicated to acknowledging the local Aboriginal place name/local people of any given article. Many might see this as being overly politically correct but it is standard practice in Australia to do so in some form or another ( see first enumerated guideline), it counters systemic bias and provides useful and relevant information.
Just a thought. Witty Lama 15:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Does the title really need to be shown? It's redundant, and just makes the infobox bigger and bloatier. See Point Lonsdale, Victoria - the title is already in big letters at the top of the page, and in the opening sentence. The bar with "Point Lonsdale Victoria" doesn't seem to add anything at all. Stevage 04:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Updated it - the convert templates actually go through about 11 rounds of calculations each, which is fine for a single use but was slowing IAP quite a bit and was bulking up the code. I substed it multiple times, removing optional variables along the way, and have replaced most instances of convert with the end result. As the display is exactly the same, few will notice. Orderinchaos 05:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)