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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
As part of the conversion of {{ Geobox}} to {{ Infobox settlement}}, Ɱ pointed out that Geobox looks better than the current version of {{ Infobox settlement}}, because it avoids bunching up all of the images at the top of the infobox. Geobox puts the maps at the bottom of the infobox.
I agree with Ɱ's assessment of the bunching issue. Too many visual elements together makes the infobox more difficult to interpret. We ran into this problem at {{ Infobox mountain}}. In order to fix this issue, we put the photograph at the top of the infobox and the map in the middle; unless there only a map and no photo, in which case the map is at the top. Thanks to Frietjes, there is a simple trick to implement this.
I've created a new version of {{ Infobox settlement}} in a sandbox. What I've done is order the images into three priorities:
|image_skyline=
, a photograph of the settlement|pushpin_map=
or |image_map=
, the map showing the location of the settlement|image_flag=
, |image_seal=
, |image_shield=
, etc., small images related to the settlementThe highest priority image that exists is shown at the top of the infobox. The others are shown in the middle of the infobox, below the high-priority tabular data (such as country, population, etc.), but above the lower-priority data such as ZIP code, time zone, or website. In addition, data that is associated with each of these images (such as captions, coordinates, mottos, nicknames) are kept with the images (either top or middle).
To visualize the change, please look at the testcases: the current infobox is on the left, the proposed infobox is on the right. The sandbox version is tested and ready-to-go: I would like feedback and consensus on the change before making it live on WP.
For other editors:
Pinging Zackmann08 and WOSlinker who were involved in the discussion at Talk:Briarcliff Manor, New York. — hike395 ( talk) 21:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
In order to fix this issue, we put the photograph at the top of the infobox and the map in the middle; unless there only a map and no photo, in which case the map is at the top.the position of the map would depend on the existence of a photo. The order should always be the same. 77.13.146.241 ( talk) 04:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I think this template is responsible for this strange short description on Duque de Caxias, Rio de Janeiro. The problem is probably because the infobox has subdivision1: Region => Southeast and subdivision2: State => Rio de Janeiro. It would be better to change this somehow programmatically to either "Municipality in Southeast Brazil" or "Municipality in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil" (or "... Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil"). This seems to be a problem for most articles on Brazilian settlements with the infobox that I've checked. Daß Wölf 22:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Even many of those opposed acknowledge problems with the current title, but no alternative has generated enough support to warrant a move. The leading candidates appear to be {{Infobox populated area}} or {{Infobox locality}}, but interest petered almost a week ago. I suggest a proposal to move to specifically either one of those, or perhaps another particular choice, may have a better chance of success. I will just add that it's possible there is no good English term that means what is required here. ( non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 19:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Infobox settlement → ? – See Template talk:Infobox settlement#Better name for the template {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 13:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Several of these subdividions were subordinate state and provinces, while "settlements" is supposed to covers cities, towns, and villages[referring to Infobox former subdivision]
States are not settlements[referring to Infobox U.S. state]
Per definition, a settlement(human) is not a region (administrative unit). Whatever non-vetted wiki documentation may say: we cannot change RL concepts, so future editors will be confused ever[referring to various templates]
A (country) district is not a settlement[referring to Infobox district of Iraq]
If we were going by Merriam-Webster the term for settlement is as follows: a : occupation by settlers; b : a place or region newly settled; c : a small village; I don't see how a state fits this criteria[referring to Infobox U.S. state]
It should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country. Some redirects, like {{ Infobox populated area}}, fit the documentation better than 'settlement'. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 16:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
This template is used to produce an Infobox for human settlements of any type below the level of a country. Examples of settlements for which this template should be used include, but are not limited to, cities, towns, villages, communities, counties, provinces, and administrative districts. For countries, {{ Infobox country}} should be used.
Parameters are described in the table below. For questions, see the talk page. For a U.S. city guideline, see WP:USCITIES.
pedanticwhen you don't agree with them (or don't understand). You are muddying the discussion; it is not an argument. - DePiep ( talk) 12:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
What are 'we' voting on? Renaming to some known name, or an unknown name that will be decided after this vote? Also, why is another name going to be magically better??? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
It should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country, which clearly does not concur with the basic meaning of "settlement". GN-z11 ☎ ★ 14:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Usage creep is promoted through documentation, bad. Documentation cannot change the meaning of the concept "settlement"seemed to me that you meant that even if we change the documentation to support the bigger scope, this would still be bad documentation, which to me seemed like you are opposing changing it (to reflect actual usage, not to reflect what you prefer the actual usage to be). -- Gonnym ( talk) 16:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
"for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
"Infobox settlement is used for objects that are not a settlement (but are a country[...])". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
"for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Was that not already clear? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
In so many recent TfD discussions, most of the opposing rationals were based only on the fact that the template is called "settlement". Is there a better name this template can use so these arguments stop being used? -- Gonnym ( talk) 11:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
{{Infobox bikeshed}}
.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 19:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Is the template code working correctly? There are over 20k articles listed at
Category:Wikipedia page with obscure country or subdivision, from spot checking articles, most seem to be calling this template (or one of its wrappers). Since the category's documentation says: These pages have a call to {{#invoke:ISO 3166}} which either the country, subdivision or both are not recognized.
- the following code must be the one which tags the articles:
{{#invoke:ISO 3166 |geocoordinsert |1={{{coordinates|}}} |country={{{subdivision_name|}}} |subdivision1={{{subdivision_name1|}}} |subdivision2={{{subdivision_name2|}}} |subdivision3={{{subdivision_name3|}}} |type=city{{#if:{{{population_total|}}} |{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{formatnum:{{{population_total}}}|R}}+1}}| |({{formatnum:{{{population_total}}}|R}}) }} }} }}
Is the template code ok, is the editor usage wrong? 20k is way too high for such a thing. -- Gonnym ( talk) 23:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
|subdivision_name=
or |subdivision_name1=
for this template can be arbitrary wikicode (see, e.g.,
User:Hike395/testISO, extracted from
Abakan, which is placed into the "obscure subdivision" tracking category).|subdivison1=
and |subdivison2=
are invalid, it will return
Category:Wikipedia page with obscure subdivision|country=
is invalid, it will return
Category:Wikipedia page with obscure country@ Gonnym, Frietjes, Jonesey95, and BrandonXLF: I think I see what's going on. Module:ISO 3166 is magic code that attempts to map backwards from country/subdivision strings to ISO 3166. There seems to be some Lua code for stripping wikilink markup. There is no code for stripping suffixes (such as references), which caused an error for Abakan.
First-level (country) region codes for geohack are moderately useful for providing mapping links specific for that country. Second-level (province) region codes are not used by geohack AFAICT. The geocoordinsert function seems to be providing a "best effort" at providing first and second level region codes. There are about 20K settlement articles where the second one fails, filling a tracking category.
Because it's a "best effort", and not critical functionality, and because editors are allowed to enter arbitrary wikicode, I think filling a tracking category is overly alarming. If I understand my Lua correctly, setting "nocat=true" in the function call suppresses such tracking. I added this to {{ Infobox settlement}}. The tracking categories should empty out over the next few days.
If other editors disagree, or if I misunderstood the Lua and "nocat=true" does nothing or breaks something, please let me know and we can revert. Thanks! — hike395 ( talk) 16:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Two things to note:
Thanks! — hike395 ( talk) 04:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, so the count is down to around 8k. Can someone explain to me how to fix these? As an example, lets take it
Aasa Buttar. It is placed in
Category:Wikipedia page with obscure subdivision and has
Punjab as |subdivision_name1=
- how should it be formatted? --
Gonnym (
talk) 16:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what's been happening but recently if you go to, for example, the Dallas page, and others, you see the seal in the coat of arms area when there is no input for the coat of arms at the bottom. And on some pages, such as, Shreveport, Louisiana, you see two coats of arms. Whatever change happened needs to be reverted asap.-- TheTexasNationalist99 ( talk) 15:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
messed the heck upbut really didn't go into any sort of detail. Seems to me you are reverting a helpful change because of a limited number of pages with minor issues that need to be fixed on a case by case basis. Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 18:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
In the parameter "name", the example here just only says "Chicago", not "Chicago, Illinois".
However, many articles using this infobox don't just have the city name or town name or settlement name, in that parameter.
Many articles instead add a comma and some other name, of the larger region where that settlement is located.
Should the name parameter say "Chicago" or "Chicago, Illinois"
I think the articles should follow this example on this article however, in reviewing, I find TOO many articles include "comma, larger region name" for the name parameter. So it caused me to doubt.
Please clarify, if it should say "Chicago" or "Chicago, Illinois" - "Ponce" or "Ponce, Puerto Rico". If it should include the comma with the larger region, then the example on this article should be updated to show just that. Thank you.--
Level C (
talk) 21:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
|subdivision_name1=
. If at any point, the infobox decides to change the layout of how the infobox title is shown, and show it as "Chicago, Illinois" then it will just take the value from |subdivision_name1=
without requiring any page edit. So to summarize, use |name=
for the actual name only. --
Gonnym (
talk) 21:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)This
edit request to
Template:Infobox settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, could you please improve the rounding for population density to 1 decimal point, because this template is used for Chinese provinces. The Chinese Wikipedia's data is more precise. :) =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= ( talk) 11:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Would someone please fix whatever is showing
in these articles:
Sorry, I don't have time to investigate. Perhaps Zackmann08 could have a look. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Infobox South African town - can anyone subst: these properly, so that template can be deleted. Almost two weeks since closure. 78.54.44.99 ( talk) 20:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
| subdivision_type = Country | subdivision_name = [[South Africa]] | subdivision_type1 = Province | subdivision_type2 = District | subdivision_type3 = Municipality | subdivision_type4 = Main Place | unit_pref = Metric | timezone1 = [[South African Standard Time|SAST]] | utc_offset1 = +2 | postal_code_type = [[List of postal codes in South Africa|Postal code]] <span style="font-weight:normal;">(street)</span> | postal2_code_type = [[Post-office box|PO box]] | area_code_type = [[Telephone numbers in South Africa|Area code]]
|censuscode=
. Do you think that should be just deleted? Because I read the consensus at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 4 #Template:Infobox South African town as Replace and delete, not just delete. Don't you agree?fucking preciousis not very nice my friend. Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 22:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I was going to add a few wikidata fallbacks to the template, but wanted to get some feedback first...
These would be fallbacks. I.E. if no |image_flag=
flag image was provided the template would then poll Wikidata to see if one was provided there. I don't see any harm here but wanted to check... --
Zackmann (
Talk to me/
What I been doing) 18:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
A few more that I have identified...
-- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 18:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
messed them the heck up.... -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 16:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I made my take on with the population field in the sandbox. I made two changes:
Example page where infobox is used is User:Zache/settlement. Known issues are that with Module:WikidataIB you you can only ask "preferred" value and if there is no preferred value defined. If there is multiple values and you would need to sort them by date and select latest then you are out of luck. However, this is a problem with WikidataIB and there is no technical reason why sorting could not be done. (example with frwiki, @ RexxS:) -- Zache ( talk) 15:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
|rank=preferred
, |rank=normal
, |rank=deprecated
, |rank=best
, or a combination like |rank=p n
, you can use p
instead of preferred
, etc. It's in the documentation at
Module:WikidataIB #Ranksdata99 = {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |P571 |qid={{{qid|}}} |name=inception |fwd={{{fetchwikidata|}}} |spf={{{suppressfields|}}} |osd={{{onlysourced|}}} |{{{inception|}}} }}
|inception=
that will override any Wikidata. See
Module:WikidataIB #Base parameters.|rank=b
to the above.|fetchwikidata=
to ALL
in each individual article. This ensures that every article where it is enabled has consensus for inclusion of Wikidata, and that the editor enabling it has seen the results in that article. See
Module:WikidataIB #Whitelist and blacklist.|onlysourced=
is set to no
in the article. This filter ensures a minimum level of sourcing for each value fetched. See
Module:WikidataIB #Sourcing.{{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |P1082 |qid=Q71 |fwd=ALL |osd=no |qual=P585 |list=ubl}}
→ {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |P1082 |qid=Q71 |fwd=ALL |osd=no |qual=P585 |list=ubl |lang=fr}}
→ |sorted=yes
. See
Module:WikidataIB #Formatting multiple returned values."Known issues are that with Module:WikidataIB you you can only ask "preferred" value and if there is no preferred value defined"which is simply untrue.
{{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |P1082 |qid=Q985564 |fwd=ALL |osd=no |qual=ALL}}
→ 20,835 (1999), 20,656 (2000), 20,604 (2001), 20,457 (2002), 20,392 (2003), 20,337 (2004), 20,247 (2005), 20,178 (2006), 19,831 (2007)
|field=
to try to do that, editors will come along and take it as an invitation to fill in the field with a local value, even when there's long standing consensus not to. Example: genre on
Night (book).20,835 (31 December 1999), 20,656 (31 December 2000), 20,604 (31 December 2001), 20,457 (31 December 2002), 20,392 (31 December 2003), 20,337 (31 December 2004), 20,247 (31 December 2005), 20,178 (31 December 2006), 19,831 (31 December 2007)) as population because result is public outcry. Anyway the thing what i am to do is to get the wikidata population field to to template:Infobox settlement without getting instantly reverted because public outcry. -- Zache ( talk) 18:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The readability of code in templates is of small concern, as readers and most editors never see the code- just commenting on this. I strongly disagree (as almost any coder in any language would). Readability of code is very important as it allows others to fix/update other people's code more easily without spending hours just understanding it. -- Gonnym ( talk) 08:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, apologies in advance if this has already been brought up. I noticed a small stylistic issue when viewing settlement articles on mobile (specifically Firefox on Android, if it matters). The coat of arms image, and its caption, is left aligned within the infobox, whereas the other images (the main image(s), maps, etc.) are all centre aligned. This stands out to me and looks like a mistake, but I don't know how to fix it myself. Thanks! odg ( talk) 13:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Howdy all. So as anyone who follows TFDs knows already, there have been a large number of TFDs surrounding the numerous custom wrappers for this template. I wanted to see if we could try to get some guidelines put together on when to create wrapper templates and when not to. I have been one of those in favor of deleting most of these wrappers, but on a number of occasions, other editors have completely turned me around after pointing out some of the useful things the wrappers provide. So I've come to realize that I think we need some sort of guidelines. I'm not talking about establishing new WP policy, but just a set of best practices that we can refer to.
For example, one could argue for the creation of 58 wrapper templates for each of the 58 counties in California that provide the Country of United States, the State of California and then each of the counties in turn... Yes that saves people from having to type in 3 parameters, but that also adds 58 additional wrapper templates to be maintained... I'm pretty sure that most of us can agree that we don't need 58 wrappers for each of the county's in California... But as someone who previously nominated {{ Infobox German location}} for deletion, I have been completely turned around to feel that this template actually provides real benefit.
So here is my thought... What if we get a group of 5-10 people on board and try to write up a best practice of when to use them and when not to. If someone comes along and bulk nominates a bunch of these wrappers we can go uh no.... Per best practice documented here this is just fine
. And on the flip side, if someone creates a custom wrapper for their county, we can go uh no.... Per best practice documented here this is a no no
.
Once we have that document in place, we can then go through all the wrappers once and basically speedily keep those that meet the criteria (not exactly sure how best to do that but we will figure out the specifics later). The end result would be we remove the ones that we all agree aren't helpful, and keep the ones that are. In keeping those ones, we also ensure that any subsequent attempts to delete them must at least note the fact that they have previously been reviewed and determined to meet the criteria for inclusion.
At the moment this is only a half baked idea, but I would be very interested in what others have to say on the mater. Please share any thoughts you have! -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:00, 26 March 2019 (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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
As part of the conversion of {{ Geobox}} to {{ Infobox settlement}}, Ɱ pointed out that Geobox looks better than the current version of {{ Infobox settlement}}, because it avoids bunching up all of the images at the top of the infobox. Geobox puts the maps at the bottom of the infobox.
I agree with Ɱ's assessment of the bunching issue. Too many visual elements together makes the infobox more difficult to interpret. We ran into this problem at {{ Infobox mountain}}. In order to fix this issue, we put the photograph at the top of the infobox and the map in the middle; unless there only a map and no photo, in which case the map is at the top. Thanks to Frietjes, there is a simple trick to implement this.
I've created a new version of {{ Infobox settlement}} in a sandbox. What I've done is order the images into three priorities:
|image_skyline=
, a photograph of the settlement|pushpin_map=
or |image_map=
, the map showing the location of the settlement|image_flag=
, |image_seal=
, |image_shield=
, etc., small images related to the settlementThe highest priority image that exists is shown at the top of the infobox. The others are shown in the middle of the infobox, below the high-priority tabular data (such as country, population, etc.), but above the lower-priority data such as ZIP code, time zone, or website. In addition, data that is associated with each of these images (such as captions, coordinates, mottos, nicknames) are kept with the images (either top or middle).
To visualize the change, please look at the testcases: the current infobox is on the left, the proposed infobox is on the right. The sandbox version is tested and ready-to-go: I would like feedback and consensus on the change before making it live on WP.
For other editors:
Pinging Zackmann08 and WOSlinker who were involved in the discussion at Talk:Briarcliff Manor, New York. — hike395 ( talk) 21:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
In order to fix this issue, we put the photograph at the top of the infobox and the map in the middle; unless there only a map and no photo, in which case the map is at the top.the position of the map would depend on the existence of a photo. The order should always be the same. 77.13.146.241 ( talk) 04:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I think this template is responsible for this strange short description on Duque de Caxias, Rio de Janeiro. The problem is probably because the infobox has subdivision1: Region => Southeast and subdivision2: State => Rio de Janeiro. It would be better to change this somehow programmatically to either "Municipality in Southeast Brazil" or "Municipality in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil" (or "... Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil"). This seems to be a problem for most articles on Brazilian settlements with the infobox that I've checked. Daß Wölf 22:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Even many of those opposed acknowledge problems with the current title, but no alternative has generated enough support to warrant a move. The leading candidates appear to be {{Infobox populated area}} or {{Infobox locality}}, but interest petered almost a week ago. I suggest a proposal to move to specifically either one of those, or perhaps another particular choice, may have a better chance of success. I will just add that it's possible there is no good English term that means what is required here. ( non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 19:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Infobox settlement → ? – See Template talk:Infobox settlement#Better name for the template {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 13:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Several of these subdividions were subordinate state and provinces, while "settlements" is supposed to covers cities, towns, and villages[referring to Infobox former subdivision]
States are not settlements[referring to Infobox U.S. state]
Per definition, a settlement(human) is not a region (administrative unit). Whatever non-vetted wiki documentation may say: we cannot change RL concepts, so future editors will be confused ever[referring to various templates]
A (country) district is not a settlement[referring to Infobox district of Iraq]
If we were going by Merriam-Webster the term for settlement is as follows: a : occupation by settlers; b : a place or region newly settled; c : a small village; I don't see how a state fits this criteria[referring to Infobox U.S. state]
It should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country. Some redirects, like {{ Infobox populated area}}, fit the documentation better than 'settlement'. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 16:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
This template is used to produce an Infobox for human settlements of any type below the level of a country. Examples of settlements for which this template should be used include, but are not limited to, cities, towns, villages, communities, counties, provinces, and administrative districts. For countries, {{ Infobox country}} should be used.
Parameters are described in the table below. For questions, see the talk page. For a U.S. city guideline, see WP:USCITIES.
pedanticwhen you don't agree with them (or don't understand). You are muddying the discussion; it is not an argument. - DePiep ( talk) 12:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
What are 'we' voting on? Renaming to some known name, or an unknown name that will be decided after this vote? Also, why is another name going to be magically better??? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
It should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country, which clearly does not concur with the basic meaning of "settlement". GN-z11 ☎ ★ 14:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Usage creep is promoted through documentation, bad. Documentation cannot change the meaning of the concept "settlement"seemed to me that you meant that even if we change the documentation to support the bigger scope, this would still be bad documentation, which to me seemed like you are opposing changing it (to reflect actual usage, not to reflect what you prefer the actual usage to be). -- Gonnym ( talk) 16:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
"for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
"Infobox settlement is used for objects that are not a settlement (but are a country[...])". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
"for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera—in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Was that not already clear? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
In so many recent TfD discussions, most of the opposing rationals were based only on the fact that the template is called "settlement". Is there a better name this template can use so these arguments stop being used? -- Gonnym ( talk) 11:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
{{Infobox bikeshed}}
.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 19:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Is the template code working correctly? There are over 20k articles listed at
Category:Wikipedia page with obscure country or subdivision, from spot checking articles, most seem to be calling this template (or one of its wrappers). Since the category's documentation says: These pages have a call to {{#invoke:ISO 3166}} which either the country, subdivision or both are not recognized.
- the following code must be the one which tags the articles:
{{#invoke:ISO 3166 |geocoordinsert |1={{{coordinates|}}} |country={{{subdivision_name|}}} |subdivision1={{{subdivision_name1|}}} |subdivision2={{{subdivision_name2|}}} |subdivision3={{{subdivision_name3|}}} |type=city{{#if:{{{population_total|}}} |{{#iferror:{{#expr:{{formatnum:{{{population_total}}}|R}}+1}}| |({{formatnum:{{{population_total}}}|R}}) }} }} }}
Is the template code ok, is the editor usage wrong? 20k is way too high for such a thing. -- Gonnym ( talk) 23:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
|subdivision_name=
or |subdivision_name1=
for this template can be arbitrary wikicode (see, e.g.,
User:Hike395/testISO, extracted from
Abakan, which is placed into the "obscure subdivision" tracking category).|subdivison1=
and |subdivison2=
are invalid, it will return
Category:Wikipedia page with obscure subdivision|country=
is invalid, it will return
Category:Wikipedia page with obscure country@ Gonnym, Frietjes, Jonesey95, and BrandonXLF: I think I see what's going on. Module:ISO 3166 is magic code that attempts to map backwards from country/subdivision strings to ISO 3166. There seems to be some Lua code for stripping wikilink markup. There is no code for stripping suffixes (such as references), which caused an error for Abakan.
First-level (country) region codes for geohack are moderately useful for providing mapping links specific for that country. Second-level (province) region codes are not used by geohack AFAICT. The geocoordinsert function seems to be providing a "best effort" at providing first and second level region codes. There are about 20K settlement articles where the second one fails, filling a tracking category.
Because it's a "best effort", and not critical functionality, and because editors are allowed to enter arbitrary wikicode, I think filling a tracking category is overly alarming. If I understand my Lua correctly, setting "nocat=true" in the function call suppresses such tracking. I added this to {{ Infobox settlement}}. The tracking categories should empty out over the next few days.
If other editors disagree, or if I misunderstood the Lua and "nocat=true" does nothing or breaks something, please let me know and we can revert. Thanks! — hike395 ( talk) 16:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Two things to note:
Thanks! — hike395 ( talk) 04:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, so the count is down to around 8k. Can someone explain to me how to fix these? As an example, lets take it
Aasa Buttar. It is placed in
Category:Wikipedia page with obscure subdivision and has
Punjab as |subdivision_name1=
- how should it be formatted? --
Gonnym (
talk) 16:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what's been happening but recently if you go to, for example, the Dallas page, and others, you see the seal in the coat of arms area when there is no input for the coat of arms at the bottom. And on some pages, such as, Shreveport, Louisiana, you see two coats of arms. Whatever change happened needs to be reverted asap.-- TheTexasNationalist99 ( talk) 15:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
messed the heck upbut really didn't go into any sort of detail. Seems to me you are reverting a helpful change because of a limited number of pages with minor issues that need to be fixed on a case by case basis. Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 18:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
In the parameter "name", the example here just only says "Chicago", not "Chicago, Illinois".
However, many articles using this infobox don't just have the city name or town name or settlement name, in that parameter.
Many articles instead add a comma and some other name, of the larger region where that settlement is located.
Should the name parameter say "Chicago" or "Chicago, Illinois"
I think the articles should follow this example on this article however, in reviewing, I find TOO many articles include "comma, larger region name" for the name parameter. So it caused me to doubt.
Please clarify, if it should say "Chicago" or "Chicago, Illinois" - "Ponce" or "Ponce, Puerto Rico". If it should include the comma with the larger region, then the example on this article should be updated to show just that. Thank you.--
Level C (
talk) 21:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
|subdivision_name1=
. If at any point, the infobox decides to change the layout of how the infobox title is shown, and show it as "Chicago, Illinois" then it will just take the value from |subdivision_name1=
without requiring any page edit. So to summarize, use |name=
for the actual name only. --
Gonnym (
talk) 21:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)This
edit request to
Template:Infobox settlement has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi, could you please improve the rounding for population density to 1 decimal point, because this template is used for Chinese provinces. The Chinese Wikipedia's data is more precise. :) =*= XHCN Quang Minh =*= ( talk) 11:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Would someone please fix whatever is showing
in these articles:
Sorry, I don't have time to investigate. Perhaps Zackmann08 could have a look. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Template:Infobox South African town - can anyone subst: these properly, so that template can be deleted. Almost two weeks since closure. 78.54.44.99 ( talk) 20:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
| subdivision_type = Country | subdivision_name = [[South Africa]] | subdivision_type1 = Province | subdivision_type2 = District | subdivision_type3 = Municipality | subdivision_type4 = Main Place | unit_pref = Metric | timezone1 = [[South African Standard Time|SAST]] | utc_offset1 = +2 | postal_code_type = [[List of postal codes in South Africa|Postal code]] <span style="font-weight:normal;">(street)</span> | postal2_code_type = [[Post-office box|PO box]] | area_code_type = [[Telephone numbers in South Africa|Area code]]
|censuscode=
. Do you think that should be just deleted? Because I read the consensus at
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 4 #Template:Infobox South African town as Replace and delete, not just delete. Don't you agree?fucking preciousis not very nice my friend. Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 22:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I was going to add a few wikidata fallbacks to the template, but wanted to get some feedback first...
These would be fallbacks. I.E. if no |image_flag=
flag image was provided the template would then poll Wikidata to see if one was provided there. I don't see any harm here but wanted to check... --
Zackmann (
Talk to me/
What I been doing) 18:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
A few more that I have identified...
-- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 18:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
messed them the heck up.... -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 16:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I made my take on with the population field in the sandbox. I made two changes:
Example page where infobox is used is User:Zache/settlement. Known issues are that with Module:WikidataIB you you can only ask "preferred" value and if there is no preferred value defined. If there is multiple values and you would need to sort them by date and select latest then you are out of luck. However, this is a problem with WikidataIB and there is no technical reason why sorting could not be done. (example with frwiki, @ RexxS:) -- Zache ( talk) 15:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
|rank=preferred
, |rank=normal
, |rank=deprecated
, |rank=best
, or a combination like |rank=p n
, you can use p
instead of preferred
, etc. It's in the documentation at
Module:WikidataIB #Ranksdata99 = {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |P571 |qid={{{qid|}}} |name=inception |fwd={{{fetchwikidata|}}} |spf={{{suppressfields|}}} |osd={{{onlysourced|}}} |{{{inception|}}} }}
|inception=
that will override any Wikidata. See
Module:WikidataIB #Base parameters.|rank=b
to the above.|fetchwikidata=
to ALL
in each individual article. This ensures that every article where it is enabled has consensus for inclusion of Wikidata, and that the editor enabling it has seen the results in that article. See
Module:WikidataIB #Whitelist and blacklist.|onlysourced=
is set to no
in the article. This filter ensures a minimum level of sourcing for each value fetched. See
Module:WikidataIB #Sourcing.{{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |P1082 |qid=Q71 |fwd=ALL |osd=no |qual=P585 |list=ubl}}
→ {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |P1082 |qid=Q71 |fwd=ALL |osd=no |qual=P585 |list=ubl |lang=fr}}
→ |sorted=yes
. See
Module:WikidataIB #Formatting multiple returned values."Known issues are that with Module:WikidataIB you you can only ask "preferred" value and if there is no preferred value defined"which is simply untrue.
{{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |P1082 |qid=Q985564 |fwd=ALL |osd=no |qual=ALL}}
→ 20,835 (1999), 20,656 (2000), 20,604 (2001), 20,457 (2002), 20,392 (2003), 20,337 (2004), 20,247 (2005), 20,178 (2006), 19,831 (2007)
|field=
to try to do that, editors will come along and take it as an invitation to fill in the field with a local value, even when there's long standing consensus not to. Example: genre on
Night (book).20,835 (31 December 1999), 20,656 (31 December 2000), 20,604 (31 December 2001), 20,457 (31 December 2002), 20,392 (31 December 2003), 20,337 (31 December 2004), 20,247 (31 December 2005), 20,178 (31 December 2006), 19,831 (31 December 2007)) as population because result is public outcry. Anyway the thing what i am to do is to get the wikidata population field to to template:Infobox settlement without getting instantly reverted because public outcry. -- Zache ( talk) 18:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The readability of code in templates is of small concern, as readers and most editors never see the code- just commenting on this. I strongly disagree (as almost any coder in any language would). Readability of code is very important as it allows others to fix/update other people's code more easily without spending hours just understanding it. -- Gonnym ( talk) 08:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, apologies in advance if this has already been brought up. I noticed a small stylistic issue when viewing settlement articles on mobile (specifically Firefox on Android, if it matters). The coat of arms image, and its caption, is left aligned within the infobox, whereas the other images (the main image(s), maps, etc.) are all centre aligned. This stands out to me and looks like a mistake, but I don't know how to fix it myself. Thanks! odg ( talk) 13:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Howdy all. So as anyone who follows TFDs knows already, there have been a large number of TFDs surrounding the numerous custom wrappers for this template. I wanted to see if we could try to get some guidelines put together on when to create wrapper templates and when not to. I have been one of those in favor of deleting most of these wrappers, but on a number of occasions, other editors have completely turned me around after pointing out some of the useful things the wrappers provide. So I've come to realize that I think we need some sort of guidelines. I'm not talking about establishing new WP policy, but just a set of best practices that we can refer to.
For example, one could argue for the creation of 58 wrapper templates for each of the 58 counties in California that provide the Country of United States, the State of California and then each of the counties in turn... Yes that saves people from having to type in 3 parameters, but that also adds 58 additional wrapper templates to be maintained... I'm pretty sure that most of us can agree that we don't need 58 wrappers for each of the county's in California... But as someone who previously nominated {{ Infobox German location}} for deletion, I have been completely turned around to feel that this template actually provides real benefit.
So here is my thought... What if we get a group of 5-10 people on board and try to write up a best practice of when to use them and when not to. If someone comes along and bulk nominates a bunch of these wrappers we can go uh no.... Per best practice documented here this is just fine
. And on the flip side, if someone creates a custom wrapper for their county, we can go uh no.... Per best practice documented here this is a no no
.
Once we have that document in place, we can then go through all the wrappers once and basically speedily keep those that meet the criteria (not exactly sure how best to do that but we will figure out the specifics later). The end result would be we remove the ones that we all agree aren't helpful, and keep the ones that are. In keeping those ones, we also ensure that any subsequent attempts to delete them must at least note the fact that they have previously been reviewed and determined to meet the criteria for inclusion.
At the moment this is only a half baked idea, but I would be very interested in what others have to say on the mater. Please share any thoughts you have! -- Zackmann ( Talk to me/ What I been doing) 17:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)