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.
Working examples
Some working examples using this template can be found here. MRSC • Talk 21:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The Oldham and Stretford versions (using new Greater Manchester map) are no longer working. I've tried my best, but the co-ordinate settings need recalibrating. I'm struggling myself. Jhamez84 23:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you left boundary longitude was a bit out. Based on Wigan having a latitude of -2.65ish, I'd estimate the left boundary of the image to be around -2.7 . I've changed the location mapping accordingly and it has produced much more accurate results. DJR (T) 01:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Much more accurate thanks. Though still out a little - I think the right boundary needs a tweak the most as Oldham is still showing too far east (and a little too southerly). I'll try to work out what the boundaries are tomorrow if no one else can; looks like a little trial an error is going to be the only way mind! Jhamez84 02:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
switches etc.
Taking a closer look at the code used, it looks like quite a lot of the switches used in Template:Infobox London place are no longer present. Technically, of course, this is not really that big a problem, but it would save a lot of trouble if they were re-instated with particular reference to GLA seats and the UK STD code 20. Also, given that the 9 English regions make up the 9 European Parliament constituencies (and Scotland and Wales are their own), I'd be tempted to work out some kind of automation for the "constituency_europe" field to output [[{{{region}} (European Parliament constituency)]] for English locations, and automate Scotland/Wales for their respective ones. DJR (T) 21:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes that sounds good. I've added back in the lat/lon too. MRSC • Talk 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah. I see that the ones with the UK map it gets put at the top of the screen automatically. We must be able to do the same with the London map, it will be a more economic use of space. MRSC • Talk 21:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
This now works for all the dynamic maps. MRSC • Talk 21:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the link for the country field so that the {{{country}}} output can be used with a more direct #if function elsewhere (rather than switches). Feel free to revert it if you think it will get confusing. DJR (T) 21:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I think its a good idea. Its good to tweak these things out now while it is not being uses in the main space. MRSC • Talk 21:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
That needs an edit in the output also, as brackets are appearing. Kbthompson 21:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I have also removed the link for regions in order to apply a switch for European Parliament constituencies. It appears to be working correctly, so I will remove the European Parliament field from the usage data. DJR (T) 22:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Given that "european_constituency" is no longer a field, would it perhaps make sense to rename "westminster_constituency" (which is somewhat cumbersome) to just "constituency" or "westminster"? DJR (T) 22:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Its probably better to absolutely clear as there are the various devolved constitiuencies also. MRSC • Talk
manchester troubles
I'm fairly sure the code is correct for the dynamic Manchester location map, but I can seem to get a dot to appear. My efforts at User:Djr_xi/Stretford produce a map of Greater Manchester, but fail to locate Stretford within. Any ideas? DJR (T) 22:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks fine. Is the width right? MRSC • Talk 22:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah the appearance of the map is fine...the problem is getting the marking dot to appear! DJR (T) 22:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Very odd. I pulled it out of the template and the syntax worked. Probably just tired eyes. MRSC • Talk 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
That is very strange. I don't understand why it works fine outside the infobox... this is going to need a little more investigation. DJR (T) 23:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Fixed - whoever created the {{Location map Greater Manchester}} template had put the wrong longitude/latitude boundaries for the map, throwing everything on a whack. With a little help from Google Earth, I've corrected them, though I'm not sure how exact they are. They appear to produce fairly accurate results however. DJR (T) 23:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Good. Shame some folks thought they would nominate the template for deletion rather than consider discussing it. :-/ MRSC • Talk 07:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think it's still out. The dot here should sit nicely on the Stockport/Tameside/Manchester junction, a little left/west of where it is ATM. Mr Stephen 12:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
... and now it does. Well done. Mr Stephen 15:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys! I'm interested in taking a look at or collaborating on a dynamic Greater Manchester map! I had considered producing one some time ago based upon the London map, but didn't have the know-how. Once things look like they may be ready for implimenting, please drop me a line and I'd be happy to peer review and/or roll out. Thanks, Jhamez84 17:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to suggest or fiddle. Now is the time, before it is put to use. The possibilities are endless as there is no 'legacy' code in there. A good idea is to set up a sub page and create an infobox for a place that is a bit out of the ordinary, to make sure that it works. MRSC • Talk 17:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Taking a look at the Oldham example above, I'd be happy to provide a higher res map for the backdrop - I've been thinking of replacing that image for the Greater Manchester article iteself. Thanks, Jhamez84 17:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Please do. We had some trouble getting it to work and the position of the dot might need some refining. MRSC • Talk 17:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I made a stab at correcting the longitudes utilised by the {{Location map Greater Manchester}} template, but they were based on estimates and it would be good to ensure that they are correct. Of course, a better image would also be nice... and that goes for London as well. DJR (T) 19:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The Greater Manchester Urban Area article features a free-to-use NASA image I added some time ago. Might be a possibility, but I'm working on some alternatives for the time being. Jhamez84 20:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think I've contacted those users active on this page for feedback, but out of courtesy and so no backroom descisions are made, my suggested Greater Manchester infobox map is hereby linked and avaliable for viewing. Comments, objections, preferences - let me know at my talk. Thanks, Jhamez84 01:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Why this template is good
A few notes about what this template offers over the existing ones. MRSC • Talk 12:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Having one template means only a single update is needed instead of having to do all four (or worse updating only some)
Having one template reduces the legitimacy of content forks
The template is very flexible: it is easy to add sections without upsetting the rest of the template
The output of this template is smaller but has a comparable amount of information
The issues around some of the automation not working properly in the old templates is resolved
This template uses the "infobox geography" class for consistency throughout WP
This template can handle places split between divisions much easier with second and third fields for everything from post town to constituency. It is also painless to add more if needed
This template has been tested to work for England, Scotland, Wales and London
This template can add latitude/longitude top-of-screen information to all articles, even those with static maps
Language
The template currently has three alternative languages for place names (Welsh, Gaelic and Scots). Are there any others in common usage that should be added? MRSC • Talk 18:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I might be inviting trouble, but may I suggest Cornish? I don't necessarily support its inclusion, but I can see an argument in favour, and it might stave off calls for adding elements of which I definitely would not approve (like St Piran's flag). — mholland 19:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Can't see the harm - added. MRSC • Talk 19:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Much obliged. — mholland 19:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Fire / Police / Ambulance
Like this a lot, excellent work. Just one point, is it possible to put in the fire/police/ambulance automated as I did with the England infobox? Regan123 22:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Please add them in (bearing in mind the expanded scope). I only left them out as I seem to remember there were some problems with special cases. If this is no longer a problem/can be resolved, all the better! MRSC • Talk 07:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I may need a hidden entry for Avon & Cleveland (something like formermetcounty) which would override the ceremonial county link that was there before.Regan123 18:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Shall we work on this now? Might be a good idea to sketch out how this is supposed to behave in each case. MRSC • Talk 14:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The original code works on the ceremonial county. Perhaps we could introduce a services county field. If not populated it would automatically become the Ceremonial county. So for example ceremonial county=Staffordshire results in Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service etc. If populated say by Avon it would populate Avon Fire and Rescue Service etc. Regan123 14:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Or we could do it based on:
metropolitan_county
shire_county
London borough
unitary_england
unitary_wales
unitary_scotland
Every article will have at least one of these. MRSC • Talk 15:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Does that work with Cleveland for example as I thought the councils there were non unitary? I May of course be wrong... Regan123 15:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes they are unitary: Hartlepool, Stockton-on-Tees, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland. MRSC • Talk 15:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added the mets, shires and london boroughs to this look-up table:Template:Infobox UK place /fire. The Wales, Scotland and England unitaries also need to be added for it to work for all UK. MRSC • Talk 15:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Do they need to go at the top or the bottom? Regan123 15:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
At the bottom, after Westminster. Once complete, we can use a copy of the table as a basis for Police. MRSC • Talk 09:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added in the Fire services for UAs for England now. Hope I did it right... Regan123 23:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Great. Yes it looks right to me. I've made a copy of it for police look-up, but that needs to be updated for police forces. These can be worked out accurately from the same fields, can't they? MRSC • Talk 23:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much. However there are fewer forces (eg. West Mercia) then there are brigades. Also we need to consider the City of London Police vis-a-vis the Met. Regan123 23:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah that's cool as the london_borough field calls for London so will select the right one. MRSC • Talk 23:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Great - will start on the Police tomorrow evening. Regan123 23:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the late follow up, but this should be sorted now. Regan123 11:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Older templates
I am not suggesting the old templates should redirect here. This template is an opportunity to wipe the board clean and start again. Each of the four templates has lots of bespoke elements, often done differently on each template. Adding in the legacy code from each of the four templates would make this one as creaky as the ones it is replacing. Also, us having to update the calling syntax (although a lengthy process) will allow us to revisit what is put on each article and correct errors/fill gaps. MRSC • Talk 07:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion. include all the old option names in an {{#if:}}. When they are used, include a hidden links [[User:a userpage/Tracker1| ]]. Then redirect the old templates and use the "tracker"-page's "What links here" to see which pages use outdated options. You can also do this on a "per option" basis with multiple trackers, and by doing it like that you might also be able to have a "grace period" where you can indeed provide backwards compatibility. Of course you should only do this after you finish the template, so you can easily revert once all "oldstyle" uses have been fixed. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That is a very good idea. It would be nice if we could introduce the template in a piecemeal fashion rather than having a "big bang" scenario, and this way we can find out exactly which pages need updating. DJR (T) 16:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I've given this some thought and I doubt this is something that can actually be achieved. However, what would be more managable is to copy 'local versions' of this template, once complete, over to the old templates. MRSC • Talk 17:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this may be possible, though I'm not entirely sure what User:TheDJ meant. I reckon you can store hidden links within the template, though I haven't quite developed the details and I'm going to watch the rugby now. But stay tuned! DJR (T) 17:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Definitely possible. Will be back. DJR (T) 17:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The map for a place in England
This tenplate looks very good, and I'll certainly be very happy to use it. I have one gentle question about it, however. For places in Scotland, we have a map of only Scotland, but for a place in England we have the map of Great Britain in its entirity. Given the size of the red dot, the accuracy of the "dotted map" could be improved by having the map shopw only England (and hence be of a larger size). I don't know if this could be done or how much work might be involved, but might the infobox be improved for an place in England if a map of only England was used? I'd be happy to try to give it a go myself if someone could tell me how to do it. DDStretch (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Might be a good idea to speak with User:SFC9394. He is our in-house map expert at the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board, where he was the one who helped us towards our current excellent series of maps. Please see the following archived discussion where consensus and development took place:
The Scottish maps look great and are very clear. Would be wonderful if England, Northern Ireland and Wales could have high resolution geographical relief maps. I am not at all keen on the current Northern Irish maps (eg. see Belfast, Craigavon, Portrush), which show the District boundaries - geographical relief is prettier! Of course in England there is a big advantage in just showing geog relief - you will avoid the (often poisonous) "traditional" counties versus actual adminstrative units debate!! That's gotta be a bonus!! --Mais oui! 11:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem with dotted maps for England, Scotland and Wales only is that is promotes a nationalist agenda. The map of Great Britain gives an idea of where a place actually is, and if readers want more detailed maps they can click on the OS map reference, or lat/lon links. Given a map of just England appearing to be surrounded by water as is currently the case with Scottish maps barely improves the scale of the dot, but creates confusion amongst international readers. Owain (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. However, I do not see how such a change would promote a nationalist agenda in any substantially greater way than any other separate mentions of the constituent countries and divisions of the UK do at present. Your comments about the map for Scotland suggesting that it confusingly suggests that it is surrounded by water can be easily solved with a bit of thought (you just have the "England" bit of the UK expanded, so that it is not surrounded by water). If you feel strongly about this, I would expect to see your complaints on the relevant Scotland discussion pages. I'm also not sure how verifiable is your claim that other maps would increase the confusion amongst international readers, but note that you are not objecting to the Manchester or London maps on a similar basis. The scale and resolution brought about by including just the map of England would be increased by roughly a factor of 2 (I have roughed it out), and so I think this more than "barely improves" the scale. This improvement could be made greater, I contend, if the colours of the map were changed to a lighter green for the land, and a different shade of blue for the sea than in the old map, with a slightly smaller dot of a colour which contrasts more clearly with the land colour and perhaps also the sea colour. This view has been informed by psychological and psychometric knowledge based on perceptual experiments on colour contrast and briefly mentioned here DDStretch (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I completely support an individual map for England like that of Scotland. The biggest problem with the current map is that it is panned out to such an extent that it has the Shetland Islands it it, despite the fact that the Shetlands wouldn't even use this map. The increase in resolution would definitely be noticeable, and I daresay a relief map would offer slightly more in terms of aesthetics than we have at present. DJR (T) 13:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
If we're going to have different maps for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland doesn't that defeat the point in having a unified UK infobox template? Owain (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I sort of agree with Owain here. This infobox should allow for meaningful comparison between places in the UK: using different maps would make it harder to compare quickly the locations of, say, Edinburgh and Cardiff. I think that the map is useful for rough pin-in-the-map locating, but nothing more accurate. Accuracy is what we have the co-ords for. — mholland 14:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well the ultimate solution would be to get kind of mapping like {{infobox country}} where the location of a country is also illustrated within a global context. It would be ideal if we could have a detailed map for London, England, Scotland etc. but at the same time illustrate where this focus is on a map of the UK. Obviously this will need the development of some new maps, but I daresay it wouldn't be too difficult. DJR (T) 14:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Have we considered having both a UK wide map at the top, then a sublevel map (island, region, conurbation, county etc) at the bottom? I think this would be the most useful to readers, but am unsure of the end product's look. Jhamez84 19:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
In terms of the countries, as I remember reading somewhere else, I have to agree that a map of, for example, Scotland decapitated from the rest of Britain is likely to mislead and cause confusion for those unfamilar with the UK. However, in terms of conurbations, the UK map makes it difficult to distinguish between places so a more local map is justified. However, a national map is still needed for those who dont know where London, Greater Manchester, etc. are located. On the other side of the coin, IMHO having a number of large maps on an infobox makes them too unwieldy, expecially for short articles. One solution: Would it be possible to have a local map with a small map of the UK inset in the corner of the image showing the location of the conurbation within the UK?Pit-yacker 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
What about adapting this map as a small key may and then a larger map for each of the constituent countries based on the excellent topographical style? Fiddling with maps is fraught with danger I know but it is an interesting point. In the mean time I am pleased that this template fits the status quo. Regan123 22:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Crystal Palace, London is, apparently, in 5 different London boroughs. To make matters worse, this does not correspond to 5 GLA constituencies, as two pairs overlap, meaning that there are only GLA 3 constituencies. The implications for this template would suggest we need some kind of code that allows multiple entries for london_borough (or just add even more optional fields), and some kind of system for the GLAoutput that filters GLA constituencies that have already appeared. I'm sure that latter would be possible using multiple switches in tandem, but I'm not in a position to try and think about it myself at the moment... DJR (T) 13:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Adding more boroughs is easy enough. For the LA constituencies there is a way to set it up so it follows a manual entry where one exists. MRSC • Talk 15:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Or, if we only generate the LA constituencies from the first three London boroughs, Crystal Palace will work OK. MRSC • Talk 07:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep that's a good idea. I'm almost certain there is no location in London that claims to be in more than 3 GLA constituencies, so that'd be perfect. DJR (T) 09:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes its easy to overlook the simple solution sometimes. For any places that are split between 2 boroughs that would otherwise generate the same LA constituency data twice (can't think of any, but bound to be one or two) we can place the second borough in one of the fields that does not generate the constituency. The output will remain the same. MRSC • Talk 10:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The 360 degree decimal format is very sensible for data entry into the infoboxes, but it is not friendly to the lay reader. Negative numbers (for locations west of 0) are particularly disconcerting. If someone knows how to programme the conversion to degrees minutes seconds E/W/N/S, please do. --Concrete Cowboy 13:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's necessary. Clicking on the grid ref takes you to the toolserver, which has as complete a selection of data and links as any lay person or expert could want. You might get a speedier response over at Template talk:Infobox UK place , where a likely replacement for this template is in development. The display of coords at the top right is just an implementation of {{coor title d}}, so that's where that change would have to take effect. — mholland 14:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't need to look at a map to know roughly where (say) 54N, 3W is. I know exactly where 52N 1W is, because it is near home (Buckingham, to be precise) and I can reckon from there. Without looking, I'd guess Manchester or possibly North Wales. It is definitely not Deven/Cornwall, East Anglia or in the sea off Newcastle.
Also, these figures don't just appear discreetly in the top left hand corner: they are explicit in some of the infoboxes, adding further to the general clutter. --Concrete Cowboy 18:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Country/ UK = United Kingdom
Can we please have the old settings of constituent country and sovereign state in this infobox? This is not only the most neutral, but the most verifiable and useful to international readers. Also can we please have the full spelling of United Kingdom rather than UK? Jhamez84 20:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually you could pupulate the Constituent County automatically from the County field. Regan123 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead with changing UK to United Kingdom. However, in addition to receiving no comments about this, creating a constituent country and sovereign state for this infobox is way beyond my technical editting ability! I actually like this as it will (hopefully) disuade the attempts of distruptive editors. Can we still have these settings I've suggested? Jhamez84 14:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I was driven by a desire to use an economy of space to shorten that section, but I understand if others want it back in. MRSC • Talk 14:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I can just see that once editors involved closely with Scotland and the like take a look at the infobox, that the use of "country" will become an issue. I also maintain it is the most verifiable approach to use. I think it is worth the extra line. Jhamez84 14:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Restored as original. MRSC • Talk 17:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we automate the population of Constituent country on this template - the less to fill out, the quicker it is to add. Regan123 17:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It is technically possible. However, as the flag, european constituency and ambulance service rely on it, it would require quite a bit of reworking. MRSC • Talk 17:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The "parish_status" and "parish" fields
I'm a bit confused by how these two fields are supposed to work together. My initial thought was that "parish" would contain the name of the parish in which the settlement (or place) is located, with "parish_status" perhaps containing "Town" (if the parish council calls itself a "town council", and "parish" (if it calls itself a parish council), but one would then need to have to have something like "Meeting", because some parishes have parish meetings at which all residents are allowed to attend and speak, rather than a formal council. Some appear not to have anything, even though they are still classified as parishes (this happens in Cheshire, where the Borough or District council has to take on te duties normally devolved to a parish/town council or parish meeting.) However, I'm now not so sure.
There is also the issue that occurs to a large extent in parts of Cheshire, where separate parishes have joint parish councils (and the constituent parishes of these sometimes have "parish wards" as well), though the parishes are still separate and have not merged. Some parishes even hold joint parish meetings, even though the parishes themselves are kept separate. I've gone into this in rather great detail in trying to sort out the local government of Cheshire, and I doubt Cheshire is an oddity in this respect. It is one reason why I have suggested that there is a need for articles dealing with some parishes separate from the settlements they contain, and, by extension, why there may be a need for a separate parish infobox. So, would it be possible to clarify what the two fields in the current infobox refer to and how they would be understood to be used? Many thanks. DDStretch (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree this needs a little clarification as Ddstretch says. Furthermore, when inputted, the infobox brings up a delinked "Status" header - so should parish_status= also include city status? If so, it may be worth linking "Status" to Local government in the United Kingdom and using it for these purposes. Jhamez84 16:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I also forgot to add that some towns are "unparished", i.e., they do not have town or parish councils (eg, Crewe, Wilmslow, and Chester in Cheshire), and some do (eg. Nantwich, Malpas, Congleton, and Northwich in Cheshire). The unparished/parished distinctions seem mostly to have arisen from the changes in Local government in 1974 where some towns which were formally municipal boroughs, had their borough status abolished, but no local government structure (apart from the new Boroughs or Districts) put in their place. Some towns, however, did. DDStretch (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
They are not supposed to work together. One is for if the settlement is also a parish and the other is for a settlement within a larger parish. MRSC • Talk 17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. There perhaps could do with some further elaboration of what is the intention here, because I'm still not sure how these fields will practically work given other issues to do with the logical structure and categorization of articles. I think it would be much more logical to have just one field, which would give the name of the parish within which the infobox's settlement is located. This covers both the situation you have with the proposed two fields, and yet allows for greater flexibility which will sometimes be required. These will be where there can justifiably be separate articles about each of the settlements in a civil parish, together with an article about the parish itself. This solves some tricky issues to do with categories of settlements and categories of parishes, given that one cannot have categories taking on different names from the article name they have been placed in. It would also allow consistency in dealing with civil parishes that are worthy of note, though they contain no settlements within them, with the rest of the parishes, that do. I'm assuming here that the infobox for a place is understood to be focussed on settlements, because civil parishes, although sometimes referring to single settlements, are a conceptually different category of thing. DDStretch (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have to return to this, but I really think it needs more clarification. How will the two fields be practically used?
Take the case of Knutsford. It is a town. It has a town council, and, hence, it occupies a civil parish. No other settlements other than Knutsford lie in the parish. What fields would be used, and what would their contents be? I guess parish_status is intended to contain town, but it could also contain parish, but I find this a bit confusing. The parish field would, I presume be left empty.
In the case of Crewe, this is a town which is unparished. I presume that both fields would be left empty, but the presence of a possible entry of "town" for parish_status is a bit confusing, since it has no status as a parish.
Take the case of the civil parish of Odd Rode in Borough of Congleton. This contains the three settlements Scholar Green, Rode Heath and half of Mow Cop, which is divided by the county line between Cheshire and Staffordshire. Presumably, the infoboxes associated with Scholar Green, Mow Cop, and Rode Heath would have the parish_status field left empty, and the parish field would have the entry Odd Rode. Is it envisaged that the same infobox be used for an article about the actual parish named "Odd Rode"? If not, perhaps a very simple infobox just for articles solely about parishes should be considered.
The case of Haslington is that of a principal settlemnt that gives the name to the parish. There are also the settlements of Winterley and Oakhanger within the same parish. For Haslington, I presume the parish_status field would contain "parish", whereas for artiocles and infoboxes associated with Winterley and Oakhanger would have the parish_status field left empty, and the parish field would in both cases contain Haslington. Is this correct?
I apologise for being a bit insistent, but I really do think the use of these two fields is not clear, given the current state of the documentation for them. And I tyhink it is not clear enough just how they are to be used in particular instances. I seriously wonder whether a simpler solution of just having one single field named "parish" would suffice, where it would contain either "unparished" for areas that are not parished, or the name of the parish within which the infobox's settlement is located. Any misapprehension I might have about this may, I gently suggest, be evidence of the lack of clarity of the two fields and their documentation as they stand at the moment. DDStretch (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think adding 'unparished area' to articles is a good idea as, for example, it would be added to every article in Greater London. Some editors resent infoboxes and adding this level of repetition would add fuel to their fire.
If an article is about a place that is located within a parish, the 'parish=[[Name of the parish]]' field is filled in only. This way the parish shows up as the lowest level of administrative unit.
If the article is about a place that is a parish, the 'parish_status=Parish' is filled in if the place has a parish council and 'parish_status=Town' is filled in if the place has town council. It will then be indicated that this place is a parish.
If the place has the same name as the parish but the parish is really a bigger administrative unit, you would have to decide if think there is reason to have an article about the parish. In either case, do option 1 and either put 'parish=[[Name of the parish]]' or 'parish=Name of the parish'.
Hope this helps. If this still isn't clear I will populate a few examples when I get a moment and then it will hopefully become real. MRSC • Talk 17:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - it does help, but it is incomplete. Some places do not have a parish or town council, and neither are they unparished. Instead they have a parish meeting. The distinction is a real one and it would be highly misleading to not cover it. This case could be accommodated by having the option of something like "meeting" as well as town or parish. Additionally, some adjacent parishes have a joint parish council or parish meeting with each other, and the name by which the joint parish council and/or meeting is known reflects this by being different from any of the parishes that are a party to this arrangement. Thus a settlement may be the main settlement within its parish, but the parish council may have a different name because it is shared between that parish and a number of others. It happens to a large extent within the City of Chester borough council, to a lesser extent within Crewe and Nantwich for example, and also happens in other boroughs around the country, but more likely in the north of England. This needs to be catered for by giving guidance over what to enter as the name of the parish - my suggestion is that it would be the actual parish, and not the name given to the joint parish council or meeting. In these cases, one would really have to think about tyhe possibility of having articles that cover these joint councils or meetings. I still think one needs to have "unparished" as an option, and, so long as these fields are purely optional, it will not trouble the people who you say would object. DDStretch (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
(additional comment) Although I still think the simpler option of just having one field, and allowing it to contain "unparished" is by far and away better, so long as the current system is optional (thus avoiding the problem of people objecting to repetition, though I think they can simply allow others to do the jobs if they so object), and also ensuring that all of the situations that do arise in the real application can be catered for unambiguously, then I'm prepared to go along with any consensus that would accept the two field solution. DDStretch (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
My initial thoughts are that unparished areas that have parish meetings should not have this information in the infobox, as that section relates to divisions of land as opposed to events. Explaining these unusual administrative situations is probably better spent in the main text than the infoboxes anyway. Jhamez84 01:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
See my response in the section about "going live". I think there may be some confusion about things: unparished areas are not (civil) parishes. So they cannot and do not have parish councils, town councils, or parish meetings. Parishes can have town councils, parish councils or parish meetings. Given the distinction between "town" and "parish" is merely nowadays that of what the council decides to call itself (if it decides to call itself a "town council", then it is, even though it is still a council for a parish), then I would have thought the distinction between a parish or town council and a parish meeting is much greater and much more worthy of comment. Also, I think it is a mistake to think of them as being too unusual. They are significant, and equally worthy of being separately indicated in the fields, just as "town" and "parish" is currently being indicated. If there has to be just two possible entries for the field, I would have thought it better to have "council" and "meeting", rather than the "town" and "parish" entry, leaving the field to be omitted for unparished areas. I just strongly view the current conceptual scheme that is inherent in having "town" and "parish" to be misleading, given the other important conceptual differences between the status of the things being described here ("parished" versus "unparished", and, within parishes, "council" versus "meeting", and, finally, within council, "parish council" versus "town council".) One could even draw up a binary-tree to describe how the hierarchy works out with different entities being related to each other and subsumed under each other, and this is certainly how it has been implicitly described in various texts I have read. DDStretch (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this system legally recognised at all? How widespread is this kind of parish in the UK? I'm not challenging this idea, I just think these two issues are fundamental to this system's inclusion. Jhamez84 08:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to forget councils and meetings (which was unfortuantely my starting point for this infobox). If two parishes share a council, it does not change the status of either parish and this should be reflected, not the council name. If a place is unparished, there should be no reference to that as it is the default in most of the country. I can't see any situation where the use of the 'parish' field would be confusing, that is the field that shows which parish a settlement is in. If the 'parish_status' field is going to be problematic, we should remove it. MRSC • Talk 09:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, some responses:
The legal status of parishes, their creation, their grouping together, the parish meetings, etc, can be found in various places. The the NALC is an official organisation set up to assist this layer of local government, and this section gives some useful information about them and their powers, although much of that website gives relevant information about them.
In particular, This document: Environment Circular 11/97, Circular from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SWIE 5DU (found by searching within the NALC site using "parish" and "council" as search terms) states the following:
"10. Most populated rural areas are already parished. It is desirable that any changes should result in parishes, or groups of parishes (see below), with sufficient population to justify the establishment of a parish council in each, rather than rely on parish government by parish meeting only. Section 16(2) of the 1997 Act requires that a parish with 200 or more electors must have a parish council, and that a parish with between 150 and 200 electors must have a council if the parish meeting resolves in favour of one. (Where a parish with a population of less than 150 resolves in favour of a parish council it is at the discretion of the district council whether or not to establish one.)"
Sections 12 and 13 from the same document give information about grouping parishes, as well as referring to "parish meetings":
"Grouping Parishes. 12. Parishes which individually have electorates under 200 and no parish council can be grouped so that a parish council can be formed; so can parishes which no longer require a separate parish council. This may avoid the need for substantive changes to parish boundaries, the creation of new parishes, or the abolition of very small parishes where - despite their size - they still reflect community identity. Grouping needs, however, to be compatible with the retention of community interests. It would be inappropriate for it to be used to build artificially large units under single parish councils. Town status cannot be adopted for a parish which is grouped (section 245(6) of the 1972 Act). 13. Where a district council takes action to group parishes, under section 11 of the 1972 Act, no reference is required either to the Local Government Commission or to the Department. However, for administrative purposes, the Department would wish to be informed when such action has been taken. Model grouping orders are available from the Department. "
So, all in all, I think the legal status of all these bodies can be established.
The matter of whether parishes are prevalent or not. They are prevalent outside of London, and so I think this sentence: "If a place is unparished, there should be no reference to that as it is the default in most of the country." is simply not true outside of London. The NALC gives information about them, and the document already mentioned has the opening sentence "Most populated rural areas are already parished." in section 10 (also quoted above). This document is an official circular from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and so can be taken to be a verified source. Furthermore, a simple Google search using "UK" and "parish council", for example, lists many websites for parish councils, and this site states "The NALC represents some 10,000 town, parish and community councils across England and Wales. It is the leading organisation tasked with protecting the rights and representing the interests of these councils.". Whereas the figure of 10,000 includes verious additional kinds of councils, there is also a very extensive list of links on the NALC website to official websites of parish/town councils/meetings. This additional website shows an extensive list of official websites for parishes in all areas of the UK outside of London, and it should be realised that this is likely to be an underestimate, since not all parish/town councils/meetings have websites. So I hardly think they are unusual outside of London. It seems more that the distribution of parished and unparished areas is not as heavily biased in favour of unparished areas as was stated outside of London.
I really do think the distinction between "town" and "parish" in the parish_status field should be dropped. This would seem to fit in with this comment by User:MRSC: "If two parishes share a council, it does not change the status of either parish and this should be reflected, not the council name.", though the comment was about joint parishes. However, it does downplay the importance of a council's name, which I think should be merely applied to the "town" and "parish" doistinction currently being proposed.
I seriously am of the opinion that the parish_status field should be dropped. This would leave the parish field to contain the civil parish within which a settlement can be found, or, if the area if unparished, it could either just not be filled in, and therefore not appear (i.e., be optional), or have the entry "unparished", with a provision for editors who may resent having to type "unparished" too many times having some default entry of "unparished" made, as was suggested in other cases discussed on this page. I really now firmly think any other way of dealing with parishes becomes too complicated and time-consuming to handle within the infobox. Just have the name of the parish, if any, and let the other "fine details" be sorted out in the text by editors preprared to go into that amount of detail. DDStretch (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the 'parish_status' field, if discussion produces a strong desire to put it back, then so be it. MRSC • Talk 11:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the most sensible way forward to maintain the high quality of the work you have already done on producing what will turn out to be a very good new infobox resource. I wonder if a small change to the name of the remaining parish filed would be advisable? The change would be to "civil_parish", to forestall any misunderstanding that this field was intended for the ecclesiastical parish (now, a different entity, but from which the civil parishes can have their origin traced). DDStretch (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the Parish Council becomes a Town Council, rather than the parish becomes a town. It could be lost from the box altogether really as its not that significant, although it is often not recorded in articles. MRSC • Talk 17:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Of course, you are correct. Sorry for my clumsy wording. I really would like a field for the parish to be included, as it would fit in very well with the use of this infobox in articles covered within the Cheshire WikiProject. DDStretch (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
telephone codes
While area_code is fairly obvious, I must admit it is gets fairly confusing as area usually implies geography which implies postal code. That may just be where I am, but perhaps we could consider renaming the field something like "STD_code" or even "telephone code". In addition, would it be possible to use a #switch function to link an entry of 020 to the page UK STD code 20, but also allow any other entry? I seem to be having troubles in my sandbox. DJR (T) 12:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Dialling code is what the link says so its probably for the best that it is consistently named. 'area_code' is what was copied from the original template. I will look at the 020... MRSC • Talk 12:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Looking at BT, they call them 'Dial codes'. [1] I'm minded to change the terminology to that. Does that make sense in the context of this infobox? MRSC • Talk 12:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The difficult solution for the linked 020 to work, is we would have to create a full look-up table of all UK dial codes. It would then return say '01332' for '01332' and '020' for '020'. I have little desire to populate this table personally. But it would give the opportunity to add any other area codes that get linked (I doubt this is going to happen but might for large city codes). Someone would need to construct this table.
The easy method is to create a one-off field that generates a bespoke line only for London. The only downside is that it can't be expanded for other cities' codes (each would instead require its own bespoke line). Also requires the person constructing the calling syntax to know of its existence but that can go in the instructions.
Which should it be? MRSC • Talk 13:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think dial_code is a very good solution - it is nice and short and resolves any ambiguity. I've managed to figure out how to get the switch to work properly, so an input of 020 will automatically become 020, while any other input will remain unchanged. DJR (T) 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't think you would need to create a fully populated table, it's not there at the moment. Have you considered places in Greater London, like Romford (01708) ... BTW: back on the London discussion page, Tarquin Binary has produced some embarrassing results from looking up the locations to which the co-ordinates on pages, actually point. Kbthompson 18:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
No the table is no longer required - it was fairly easily solved using a #switch function with an option for input=output. DJR (T) 01:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this template safe to release into the "wild" yet?
Is this template ready to use, or is still in a pre-release stage? Pit-yacker 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Seems like all the issues raised on here have been addressed. I'm still unsure about using a standalone conurbation map for Greater Manchester and other city regions. But if the consensus is there.... Jhamez84 22:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, seems like some articles have begun using this infobox - Crystal Palace, London and Lewis. Jhamez84 22:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but all the issues have not yet been addressed, as there are issues still with the entries for the parishes that need sorting out (such as the omission I have pointed out in my latest message in the appropriate section, above.) DDStretch (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is quite unnecessary to rush into an implementation of a half-baked template. Until we are all confident that all possible usage permutations for this template a) are possible, and b) work in practice, then we should wait. I am currently experimenting with a system where all of the old templates can be redirected here straight away without any consequences for pages using their old codes. The system will create a page that lists all pages using old code, and then updates can be made in a piecemeal fashion rather than having to implement a "big bang" across the board. DJR (T) 01:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Apologies. I missed that unresolved topic above, though the examples I highlighted above are examples of articles that are going ahead with the changes. With regards to the unresolved topic (as I will be dual posting also there) my thoughts are that unparished areas that have parish meetings should not have this information in the infobox, as that section relates to divisions of land as opposed to events. Jhamez84 01:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for any confusion, but I think you may have been misled a little: There are unparished areas, and there are parished areas. Some parished areas do not have either a town council or a parish council, but they do have a parish meeting. Additionally, some parishes do not have either a parish council or a parish meeting on their own, but they have a joint parish council or parish meeting with other adjacent parishes. If the field has "town" or "parish" in it, then this also refers not so much to a division of land but it now refers to the different name the parish council chooses to call itself: a town council as opposewd to a parish council. I can't see how the distinction between "divisions of land" and "events" can be usefully maintained here. DDStretch (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added a to-do list of outstanding issues. MRSC • Talk 09:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Categories
Does this template need adding to a few categories?
Very good idea. MRSC • Talk 10:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Undiscussed additions to the template continually being made
I thought we are supposed to discuss additions to the template here first, in order to achieve consensus. But I am a bit puzzled why User:Owain continues to add some fields to do with "Historic counties" to the infobox without so doing, despite it being removed on a number of occasions. The latest remioval has been by myself just now. Can I just ask whether my interpretation of the process (i.e., discussion here to achieve consensus first before making changes) is correct, and, if so, invite comments about the continual additions being made? DDStretch (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This template is supposed to replace the existing templates. I am not proposing any new esoteric fields that need technical discussion (such as the parish discussions above). This is just a like-for-like replacement of a field that already exists in the existing templates. Continual removal of it removes information from articles that are attempting to use it (c.f. Crystal Palace). Owain (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
We don't have a field for former parliamentary constituency, former urban district, former kingdom etc. etc. It is not current information and should not be included. The entries were only put into the original template as, at the time, a section of the editing community fed a pack of lies to the rest; which, when checked against academic sources, were entirely debunked. MRSC • Talk 15:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Again you are missing the point - they are not "former", they are very much still-existing entities that engender more support than some of the manufactured administrative areas that are put into this template. What has been debunked? Check ANY UK place on Britannica or a Vision of Britain. These are CURRENT entities. Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion is Verifiability - those two sites alone mean that historic counties pass the test and should be included. Owain (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Although Verifiability is a necessary criterion for inclusion, it is most certainly not a sufficient criterion for inclusion. I think you need to provide much more than verifiability, assuming, that is, that it is generally accepted that verification has happened. DDStretch (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, we are talking about UK places here. What would be sufficient? I would have thought that a published source that states for example: "Kendal: town (“parish”), South Lakeland district, administrative county of Cumbria, historic county of Westmorland, England." is not only verifiable, but is a perfect example of the use of different types of county in a contemporary encyclopædia. The phrase "ceremonial county" on the other hand is certainly less verifiable, but I do not object to its inclusion. Owain (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the fact that we are wanting an infobox about the current existing administrative arrangements makes the "historical" issues irrelevant and not wanted. This is sufficient reason to not to include the fields you kept on entering without discussion. DDStretch (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
You are mixing up "historic" and "historical". "Ceremonial" counties have nothing to do with administration either, but both happily co-existed in the previous templates. The historic county fields were deliberately excluded from this template, possibly in an attempt to start an edit war - that was unilateral action without discussion. I am merely restoring the prior status quo. Owain (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Please do not attempt to wriggle out of discussing the real cause for our complaints about your actions here by engaging in a mere squabble of no real effect about the misuse of words. It does not succeed in diverting the discussion from the real issue, and you merely appear even more biased and contravening of wikipedia guidelines for editors. Additionally, in light of this sentence from you: "The historic county fields were deliberately excluded from this template, possibly in an attempt to start an edit war" your speculations about the intentions of editors certainly contravenes the guidelines for wikipedia of assuming good faith. DDStretch (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
(reply to Owain) First of all, there is an existing field for the parish in the old infobox. I merely followed what I understood to be the correct procedure, to avoid, for example, some of the cases covered by Wikipedia:Edit war (in particular, trying to abide by the advice given just before the "See Also" section there), and also to avoid a situation where some of the consequences covered in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing would apply. Although I could have simply edited the field back to what it was without any prior discussion here, I felt it would clearly not be in the spirit of us all working together and reaching a consensus to do so. For example, if I had done what you have done, I would certainly feel myself to have strayed too close to Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, that I would have been close to contravening WP:POV as well as WP:POINT (in particular this last article's first sentence: "Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies"). I cannot, of course, speak for anyone else about how they would feel if they had done something similar, and so perhaps you do not feel this is the case for yourself? Instead. what I did do was raise the issue here, and we all engaged in rational discussion and a consesnsus was reached. I (gently) commend that strategy to you.
Secondly, you label the issues we discussed regarding parishes as being "esoteric", though in reality, they were merely unknown to some of the people working on this template, and the implicit value judgment contained by using the term is unhelpful. Indeed, the issues I raised are matters of real import, dealt with by many district and parish bodies around the entire country, and the subject of current government work and legislation that has real and practical implications for many people. In other words, they were concerned about getting the 'current situation described and modelled by the infobox as accurately as possible to avoid bias, partial information, thus giving as accurate and as neutral a description of the current situation as possible. I don't think you can justify labelling the issues I raised as "esoteric" given this. DDStretch (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This template is not ready for the mainstream yet - I thought the purpose of creating it was to allow authors of the previous templates to come together and create a unified whole, not to start another edit war. My use of the term "esoteric" was regarding the technical side of the template, not the inclusion of the data! Owain (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It is not a matter of whether or not historic counties exist or are verifiable. As said by User:MRSC, this template is to provide current information, and regardless of your personal views about "manufactured administrative areas", it is these areas that provide the official definitions of boundaries. The infobox is not trying to summarise all information in it, it is meant to provide merely a spot image. DJR (T) 18:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Er, if they exist and are verifiable then it is current information. Previous edit wars were fought over the Britannica-style opening sentences, with the compromise that the administrative and historic county information would be restricted to the infobox to prevent further wars. Given that the infoboxes we are trying to rationalise already contain this information I'm not entirely sure what your objection is. Owain (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
"I thought the purpose of creating it was [...] not to start another edit war." Can I gently and politely invite you, then, to reflect upon what the undiscussed re-entering of edits that you have engaged in have been, in the light of the articles I mentioned in my message you replied to, but which you chose not to refer to in your response? As for the application of "esoteric", the adjective placement does not reflect what you now say you intended it to mean. For example, you should have qualified "technical" with it, rather than "fields" if you meant it to apply to the technical side of the template. I also completely agree with User:Djr xi comments. DDStretch (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I am well aware of the POV guidelines, as I am well aware of the WP:A guidelines. You may well have interpreted my use of esoteric to refer to the parishes themselves, but if you read it: "esoteric fields that need technical discussion" I am referring to the wiki markup fields, not their appearance in the template as rendered. Owain (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
(reply to Owain) re: Again you are missing the point - they are not "former".... Do not attempt to use this talk page as yet another soapbox for your unsubstantiated views. WP:SOAPWP:NPOV The websites you cite do not support your claims and neither do a raft of academic literature on the subject. It would take the most imaginative synthesis to construct the idea you purport. WP:OR Please stop disrupting the workings of this encyclopedia project. WP:POINT The very language you use - manufactured administrative areas - to describe the information this encyclopedia should only convey as current; that is, current and verifiable information; betrays your actual purpose. Please take heed of the variety of editors who have reverted your addition (I believe five times now) and are taking the opportunity this talk page gives to tell you they are not happy with your inclusion. MRSC • Talk 19:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
unsubstantiated? Read Britannica. I am not using this page as a soapbox. I am re-iterating the wikipedia verifiability clause. The "manufactured administrative areas" are just that - but they should be included, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is POV editors that remove information from templates, whilst giving the impression that I'm making NPOV edits. Owain (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
...and more soapbox. MRSC • Talk 19:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? You can spout all the WP: policies you like, but this is not original research, soapbox, POV or anything else. It is verifiable (from another encylopædia no less) and already included in the current infoboxes. You have no valid reason for excluding it other than your own POV. Please explain your reasoning. Owain (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This has already been explained above by myself and several other editors, several times in fact. You are now trying to extend the conversation to promote propaganda or advocacy (i.e. 'use as a soapbox'). MRSC • Talk 19:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No it hasn't. You have accused me of original research, soapbox, POV and now propaganda and advocacy. You have failed to address the fact that this information is already included in the present infoboxes. You have failed to address the fact that it is verifiable in another encylopædia. Please explain why you wish to remove verifiable information from this encylopædia. Owain (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Owain, you know full well all this 'historic' stuff has long been discredited by a range of academic citations used on articles such as Historic counties of England. The reason this was included in the original template is because at the time of its creation, these sources had not been researched and some editors lied to the others. It is not current information, it does not belong here, it should not be in the current template or this replacement. Your comments on this talk page are just a shameless attempt to give more airtime to your discredited views. 13:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Ambulance
What are our thoughts on this being automated? It is mostly done by regions, but I seem to remember there being small exceptions (aside from the South East split). If we have a good schedule of these exceptions it can be factored-in. Does anyone have a such a list? MRSC • Talk 00:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
One way to do it is to use the automated value unless a manual value has been set using the {{{ambulance}}} parameter. WOSlinker 07:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
That was the way it was done before, but it will produce errors until they are corrected; and it may not be completely obvious how to do that. I don't mind this option TBH, but I'm playing devils advocate as others have pointed this out on the old template. MRSC • Talk 08:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Comparison with existing templates
{{infobox England place|
|Latitude= 54.326069
|Longitude= -2.745048
|Place= Kendal
|Population = 27,521 ([[United Kingdom Census 2001|2001 Census]])
|District= [[South Lakeland]]
|County= [[Cumbria]]
|Region= [[North West England]]
|Ceremonial= [[Cumbria]]
|Traditional= [[Westmorland]]
|Constituency= [[Westmorland and Lonsdale (UK Parliament constituency)|Westmorland and Lonsdale]]
|PostalTown= KENDAL
|PostCode= LA9
|DiallingCode= 01539
|GridReference= SD515925
|Euro= [[North West England (European Parliament constituency)|North West England]]
|Police= [[Cumbria Constabulary]]
}}
</td><td valign="top">
{{Infobox UK place
| official_name= Kendal
| population= 27,521 ([[United Kingdom Census 2001|2001 Census]])
| country= England
| os_grid_reference= SD515925
| latitude= 54.326069
| longitude= -2.745048
| post_town= KENDAL
| postcode_area= LA
| postcode_district= LA9
| dial_code= 01539
| constituency_westminster= [[Westmorland and Lonsdale (UK Parliament constituency)|Westmorland and Lonsdale]]
| police= Cumbria
| fire= Cumbria
| civil_parish= Kendal
| shire_district= [[South Lakeland]]
| shire_county= [[Cumbria]]
| historic_county= [[Westmorland]]
| region= North West England
}}
Some thoughts:
I think the headings are useful. People from outside Britain may not know what an OS grid reference is. And perhaps the latitude/longitude information should be included too.
The ceremonial county should be explicitly stated even when it is the same as the metro/non-metro county, as this makes comparing different places easier without knowledge of the current local government situation.
The ceremonial county should be removed from the administration section and placed alongside the historic county information in an 'other' section as neither have any administrative role.
The template looks a bit cramped, but I guess that is as a result of sharing the look-and-feel of the generic City template.
It hasn't got the headings, but I have added an "Other" section as per the existing template. It picks up the ceremonial county from either the shire_county or metropolitan_county field if they exist, otherwise from the ceremonial_county field. Owain (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is gained by this other than a less efficient use of space. MRSC • Talk 14:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah! Now I see. You sneekily put back your historic counties field, despite the consensus on this talk page not to include it. Nice. MRSC • Talk 14:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no sneakiness here, other than that to create a new version of an existing template and to remove information already contained in the originals. What is gained is the ability to compare ceremonial counties without having to know that the field is left out if the shire_county and metropolitan_county fields are filled in. That is confusing. What consensus do you speak of? I am replicating the "original" section from the existing template. You have failed to explain to me why this is a bad thing, and also why deliberately excluding information that is already held on pages using the existing template is a good thing. Owain (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I re-iterate that the ceremonial county should be removed from the administration section and placed alongside the historic county information in an 'other' section as neither have any administrative role. This is consistent with the existing template. Why is this being constantly reverted? Owain (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps because people do not believe the "Historic" stuff is needed. As [[User:MRSC}} said, it seems a consensus on here not to have it. Why don't you abide by the idea of consensus anymore? I have a compromise suggestion based on your idea that the ceremonial county information doesn't have any administrative role (thoyugh I don't know if that is really the case). Move the ceremonial county information to an "other" section on its own (i.e., don't have any of the "historic county" stuff in, but do have an other section). DDStretch (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if people believe it or not, it is verifiable and present in the existing templates. A compromise was made so that it wasn't mentioned in the opening paragraph (as Britannica does) but it was mentioned in the infobox. This template is now appearing to remove that by stealth. That cannot be condoned. Owain (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The new template does not really present the ceremonial county as having an administrative role, it just presents its existence. The field is only included for places that are not in a shire or metropolitan county (this is currently the status quo on some articles as other editors made the field optional and went about removing it where it was the same as the shire/metropolitan county; wisely removing the situation where there was a repetition of say "Kent, Kent, Kent"). It should also be remembered that the creation of the English lieutenancy areas did not occur in a vacuum, it was a reaction to the creation of unitary authorities and a means to group them into larger counties. This template now reflects that better than the old one did. MRSC • Talk 19:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It is present in the "admin" section though, surrounded by other administrative entities. If the infobox was to have section headings it would clearly be misrepresented as such. The lieutenancy areas and historic counties are uniform systems - having the field appear and disappear seemingly at random would be confusing to people that aren't intimately familiar with the local government structure. Owain (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Suggestions
How about including a section for the Scottish Sheriffdom? MRM 13:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that exactly the same boundaries as the lieutenancy? MRSC • Talk 14:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh no they are not. Must have been thinking of something else. I don't see any reason why not. MRSC • Talk 14:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Another suggestion, but I fully understand if this one ought not to be included. How about including religion. For example, in the Outer Hebrides, Lewis and Harris are primarily Protestant but Uist is primarily Catholic. Could be useful, but could also be rather controversial. MRM 11:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Aren't Catholics and Protestants (and Orthodox) all Christian, just as Sunnis and Shi'ites are all Moslems? I think only the most hard-line would say one was, and the other wasn't/weren't, or that all weren't. Even setting aside the problem with thinking that Catholics and Protestants are not of the same religion, I don't think "religion" could be easily verified for most places in the UK. I can just see various vandals engaging in even more disruption by sabotaging such fields, given the amount of attention this is causing now concerning claims about various religions or religious denominations/sects or whatever. Surely, the information could be included in the text if it is thought notable enough to be included for any place? DDStretch (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Good point. That does make more sense. MRM 13:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Infobox England place with UK flag for UK map
I've made this automatic for Scotland and Wales, but left it manual for England just now. MRSC • Talk 07:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Can we work out the problem areas and then break them down by district like for the Police & Fire sections? Regan123 14:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
When they did the reorganisation there was a document (available online) that had the full schedule including exceptions. I've been trying to find it but I've been a bit light on time this week. If we can track down that document (it may even have been Hansard or the wording of the SIs, I'm not sure) we can use that to work out where the problems are. MRSC • Talk 14:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[2] Found it! MRSC • Talk 08:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Of the regions I've done so far, all but East Midlands work by using data already in the template. According to this schedule only Glossop is an exception in the E Midlands, so I've used official_name to exclude that settlement only. I would imagine there may be a few settlements, i.e. suburbs of Glossop that will also be affected and they will need to be added to this template in the same way for it to work. MRSC • Talk 10:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
For the split districts of Hart and Vale of White Horse I've taken a different approach and instead made these default to {{{ambulance_service}}} which can then be added manually in the article. Everything else works automatically. MRSC • Talk 12:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, the split of these districts is:
This will need to be added to the documentation as well as the situation for Glossop. MRSC • Talk 17:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Testing
I'm going to test the template out in a variety of place articles to make sure it works. We should look to documenting all the possible permutations. Some work has already been done on that here. MRSC • Talk 12:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
First thing I've found is that the police and fire look-up tables are missing the data for most English unitary authorities. MRSC • Talk 12:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Do we need to enter UA details if they are part of a Ceremonial County coverage (eg. Stoke-on-Trent / Staffordshire)? Regan123 14:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Think I got them all. Regan123 16:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Great. It's a good time now to test it out on a few more examples. I suppose this could be done in article space, although I'm doing this in my userspace. MRSC • Talk 17:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Bots/AWB?
How clever are bots? Could one look at articles linking to template:Infobox England place and convert the syntax such as 'place=Cambridge' to 'official_name=Cambridge', add 'country=England' etc. Does anyone know how to create/request this? The specification would have to be very detailed, perhaps this is more a job for AWB, which I've also never used. Anyone any idea if that would help? MRSC • Talk 19:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Here are the number of instances of the current templates:
England - 2074
London - 462
Scotland - 170
Wales - 218
Around 2,500 is quite a few! MRSC • Talk 20:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It would certainly help, but I'm not sure how one gets one written of made to do the job. However, let us assume one does the job, would it be an idea to get a list of people who are prepared just to glance quickly at the results, may be each taking on a subset of the edits, to make sure no problems happened? If so, I would happily volunteer to do part of the work. DDStretch (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure AWB could do that. AFAICT you would need to write regular expressions to do it. I have used AWB on the Template:infobox England place series of templates quite a bit. However, writing regular expressions isn't something I have suceeded in doing yet, I end up turning the page into mush :(. All I have done is a simple find and replace, thats why a lot of pages have Latitude and Longitude as their first parameter. On a normal account AWB requires the user to confirm each edit before it is saved so whilst it is quicker than doing it by hand, the user has to be present. However, if a bot account is created and AWB is run through this one of these accounts, changes can be done automatically without the user being present. If you feel adventurous you can download AWB and have a look at it here. However, you need to register at WP:AWB before you can actually connect to Wikipedia using it.
... in for a penny, I've registered for AWB if my small brain can get to grips with it, I'll be glad to give a hand. Kbthompson 23:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Just as a further point - its possible to save/export settings. So if anyone knows how to do the correct Rules/Reg Exps then it can be saved and distributed to everyone involved Pit-yacker 23:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes this would be good if someone works out how to do it. MRSC • Talk 11:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Cleethorpes
The Police & Ambulance for Cleethorpes in the new Infobox don't match what's in the old Infobox.
WOSlinker 22:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
{{infobox England place|
|Latitude= 53.553352
|Longitude= -0.021558
|Place= Cleethorpes
|Population = 34,907 (2001 census)
|District= [[North East Lincolnshire]]
|Region= [[Yorkshire and the Humber]]
|Police= [[Humberside Police]]
|Ceremonial= [[Lincolnshire]]
|Traditional= [[Lincolnshire]]
|Constituency= [[Cleethorpes (UK Parliament constituency)|Cleethorpes]]
|PostalTown= CLEETHORPES
|PostCode= DN35
|DiallingCode= 01472
|GridReference= TA310081
|Euro= [[Yorkshire and the Humber (European Parliament constituency)|Yorkshire and the Humber]]
}}
Cleethorpes
Population
Expression error: "34,907 (2001 census)" must be numeric
Changing it to unitary_england does the trick. Regan123 22:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Oh and lieutenancy_england instead of shire_england Regan123 22:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have also just come across Template:UK Parish. In my previous travels I know that a fair few Parishes use Template:infobox England place. The only thing that UK Parish includes, which this one doesnt is a "Status" parameter. I know a number of articles which use non-standard tables (these seem to Cluster in certain areas, Cambridgeshire, and Northamptonshire being a couple of examples) also include a status parameter. Could it be worth including a status parameter? Pit-yacker 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
When this template is complete, I think the next job should be Template:Infobox UK division which should be an infobox that will work for parishes, districts, counties, regions etc. (basically any official areas with definite boundaries for which statistical information is/can be produced). This will consolidate the variety of templates used. MRSC • Talk 19:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I really think this would be a truly excellent additional resource. If there is any way I could be of assistance, then let me know. I'll be very happy to help in any way i can with this one. DDStretch (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The first thing to do is collect together a list of all the currently existing UK templates to consolidate. Then, look to see if there is a standard infobox (I would be suprised if there isn't) that we can adapt. I've started the list of current templates here. MRSC • Talk 20:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah those things have been bugging me for a while - their format seems to be very much out of date. Definitely should be tackled once this is out the way. DJR (T) 00:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Latitute, Longitude & Maps
Instead of having uk_latitude, coor_latitude, london_latitude and manchester_latitude & their associated longitude, why not just have latitude & longitude and have another parameter called maptype?
maptype could then be set to nomap, United Kingdom (default value, so not required to be set), Greater London or Greater Manchester.
Would also make it simpler to add further map images.
That sounds perfectly reasonable to be. MRSC • Talk 19:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've changed the template. WOSlinker 21:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I've now added an option so that map_type can be used for static maps as well. See Lewis for an example. WOSlinker 21:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
}}<!-- ***** Dynamic map ***** -->
{{#if:{{{latitude|}}}|<tr><td colspan="2" align="center">
{{#switch: {{{maptype|United Kingdom}}}
| nomap = <!-- No Map -->
| United Kingdom = {{location map|United Kingdom|label=|position=center|width=150|lat={{{latitude|}}}|long={{{longitude|}}}|caption=|float=}}
| Greater London = {{location map|Greater London|label=|position=center|width=290|lat={{{latitude|}}}|long={{{longitude|}}}|caption=|float=}}
| Greater Manchester = {{location map|Greater Manchester|label=|position=center|width=290|lat={{{latitude|}}}|long={{{longitude|}}}|caption=|float=}}
}}
{{Coor title d|{{{latitude}}}|N|{{{longitude}}}|E|region:GB_type:city}}
</td>
</tr>
}}<!-- ***** Population ***** -->
Page move
If anyone wants to rename the template again, please discuss it first. Simply doing a page move, without moving the look-up tables will break it. MRSC • Talk 07:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Why did you start a draft "UK" (sic) template, but very pointedly exclude Northern Ireland. This is a serious issue, and deserves an explanation. I will be pointing this out at the NI and Irish Wikipedians' notice board. Without NI I doubt the legitimacy of this exercise, and am suspicious that it is merely the prelude to a campaign to scrap our excellent series of Scottish maps, which the Scottish Wikipedians' noticeboard worked long and hard on. We are not willing to see all our hard work thrown away just because England and Wales lack sets of maps comparable to those for Northern Irish and Scottish places. --Mais oui! 07:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It would be the easiest thing in the world to add Northern Ireland. The structure of this template is open and flexible enough. All someone had to do was suggest it. Moving the template was a strange way to broach this subject, there was no agenda to exclude Northern Ireland; it just seemed already catered for by the Ireland template. MRSC • Talk 07:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
"it just seemed already catered for by the Ireland template" - errrr..... you mean just like Scotland, Wales and England were "already catered for" by their respective templates?
Just what exactly is your objective with this exercise? Are you intent on scrapping our excellent Scottish maps and replacing them with you-kay or GB ones? Why?
Scottish editors are not going to simply take this centralisation attempt lying down. I will revert any attempts to apply this template to Scottish articles unless you engage Scottish editors at our noticeboard, with a clear explanation of your agenda, and gain a crystal clear community consensus for the abolition of the long-standing Template:Infobox Scotland place. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current template. --Mais oui! 07:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
And I should add that your failure to address the maps issue does not exactly ease my suspicions. I think that it is pretty clear what the ultimate agenda is here. --Mais oui! 07:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This is failure to assume to good faith. Look above at this talk page, look at all the extensive discussions that have gone into this template from a range of editors. It is a fine piece of collaboration. Then look at the things you are saying. MRSC • Talk 07:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Mmmmm.... I have been around here for far far too long to take an enterprise like this at face value. All 4 place templates (Eng, Ire, Sco and Wal) currently being applied to UK articles work perfectly well, and the only possible reason I can see to merge them is so that the maps can be fiddled with. This is a highly sensitive area you have plunged into, and you are clearly trying to avoid the maps issue, which merely confirms your agenda. You have not had the common courtesy to address this issue with Scottish Wikipedians at our popular noticeboard. How is that for "good faith"? --Mais oui! 08:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This template is open and flexible so local projects can decide what maps best suit them. There has been no suggestion otherwise, other than from you. MRSC • Talk 08:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
For the first time in my life I'm going to have to agree with Mais oui!! This may well be a worthwhile exercise if all of our concerns are addressed, but at the moment it seems like MRSC's pet project and he will reject all criticism or attempts to improve it. I suggested a non-controversial addition to the template to make it work like the existing ones do, nobody disagreed with any of my points or even bothered to reply in three days so I made the change and was promptly reverted. This is not the way to build a comprehensive replacement for the existing British templates. Owain (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Have you read any of this talk page? And, looking at the rejecting of all criticism or attempts to improve it. I wonder who it was that reverted your addition: [3]MRSC • Talk 09:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
(Reply to user:Owain). I am a bit surprised you say you agree with User:Mais oui!'s comments, since they include implicit and explicit support for the Scotland maps. You criticised these when I suggested the possible use of an England map instead of a UK one for England. You said it would "promote nationalism", and that the Scotland maps were misleading. Have you changed your mind about this, then? DDStretch (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't necessarily agree with the maps issue, but in the previous discussion it has been suggested that both can be accommodated. What I agree with is his assessment that this "new" template has not been created/handled in a fair manner. Owain (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Review
I'm afraid I've taken what Owain has said to heart and conducted a review of all amendments, both suggested and actioned, since the template was created:
Based on this, I do not think his words are fair or justified. If there is someone who isn't listening, it isn't me. MRSC • Talk 14:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment. Just for completeness, there's another amendment you inadvertently omitted from the list: the changing of "parish" to "civil_parish" to avoid any confusion between what is intended and the ecclesiastical parish. You kindly implemented this suggestion as well. DDStretch (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The point is I am not trying to have anything controversial "added". If this template is supposed to be a replacement for the existing ones, then all I am asking for is that the existing fields (that are used on 2500+ articles) are carried over into this new template. Any attempt to blanket change articles to use this template will result in the deliberate loss of verifiable information which is clearly influenced by a POV viewpoint. I am also asking that the layout be modified to place the ceremonial and historic county information explicitly in their own section (as is currently the case with the existing templates). This allows them to be easily compared between articles, rather than having the ceremonial field appear and disappear depending on the local government situation. Also, its present location in the "administration" section is misleading. In point of fact Jhamez84 agrees that these fields should be present, but not in the administration section, which is exactly what I am proposing. Owain (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't what you said before. You said: [I] reject all criticism or attempts to improve [the template] and that this is the reason your addition was not included. If you look at the group discussions above you will see that the reason your addition is not included is because several editors both reverted your addition and explicitly stated on this talk page they do not want it included. Faced with this result you decided to make false and derogatory comments about me instead. This pattern of behaviour is not acceptable. MRSC • Talk 12:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop this charade. This template is supposed to be a replacement for templates that already exist. The fields that I am attempting to get into this supposed replacement were already discussed ad nauseum and included in the templates that already exist. Now, several editors reverted it and didn't want it and that is supposed to make all the difference? This is an attempt to push your POV by stealth. You would not be able to get the fields removed from the original templates, so you try to make another and exclude them. That is an underhand POV-pushing tactic. I am all for the unified template if and only if it includes all the information currently presented in the existing ones. Hundreds of different editors have worked to include this data on their pages and you wish to remove it? This pattern of behaviour is not acceptable. Owain (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
In which case it appears we are at deadlock. We have attempted to resolve the issue by discussion but have failed. Official arbitration is the next stage. MRSC • Talk 14:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Another option would be a straw poll. Whilst consensus is very important it is also important to recognise consensus can change. Maybe it is time to confirm or change the consensus? Regan123 22:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I've started the straw polls. MRSC • Talk 07:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been away from Wikipedia for a while so I've missed out on all these wonderful accusations of foul-play, "pushing POV by stealth" etc. etc. I realise this might be better suited under some new discussion, but I am yet to read that far so will type it while I remember it. I personally find it unbelievable that User:Mais Oui! can possibly concoct a conspiracy theory for this template to symbolise some kind of plot to undermine Scottish maps or even Scottish independence. In my (POV) opinion, now that the North Sea's pretty much served its use, I'd like nothing more than detaching England from Scotland so that we no longer have to waste money subsidising things without thanks. However, this is Wikipedia and it is NPOV, and by that accord the UK is a sovereign entity and there is no reason to have separate templates when all relevant information can be incorporated into one. As for User:Owain - to suggest that this historic/ceremonial counties business was removed without consensus is under the assumption that consensus has remained the same since whenever it was last questioned. The fact that so many users hear support its removal in the name of rationalisation should surely suggest to you that the tide is turning. DJR (T) 01:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Why this template is good (2)
MRSC, could you please tell us, as clearly and succinctly as possible, exactly why you have created this template? What are the weaknesses with the 4 existing templates, as you see it? As far as I am aware you have not had any problems with any of them prior to now, so exactly why are you now engaged in trying to delete our long-standing templates? We deserve to know your objective(s). --Mais oui! 10:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This has already been covered on this talk page. But to re-iterate/expand:
Consistency with template:Infobox City and this template uses the "infobox geography" class for consistency throughout WP
Having one template means only a single update is needed instead of having to do all four (or worse updating only some)
Having one template reduces the legitimacy of content forks
The template is very flexible: it is easy to add sections without upsetting the rest of the template
The output of this template is smaller but has a comparable amount of information
The issues around some of the automation (police/fire/ambulance) not working properly in the old templates is resolved
This template can handle places split between divisions much easier with second and third fields for everything from post town to constituency. It is also painless to add more if needed
This template can add latitude/longitude top-of-screen information to all articles, even those with static maps
Any good reasons not to have one template? MRSC • Talk 11:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I can only think of one at the moment, there is a significant chance (more than most times in the past) that Scotland could leave the UK in the near future, but I'm sure that we could either adapt the UK one or keep the current Scotland one (without deleting it if this one becomes the standard) for that eventuality. While I would, from a personal and nationalistic pov prefer separate ones for the UK countries, from a Wiki neutral pov, I have to agree that under the current position, it is best to have a UK one.
Would there be any barriers to creating an EU-wide one?MRM 15:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
In the TFD it was suggested that all UK places could be merged into Template:Infobox City which is global (and not just for cities). As this template is based on that, this exercise is a valid precursor if such a move where to happen in the future. MRSC • Talk 15:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If (or when) that starts to be implemented, I hope there would be a move to change its name so that it doesn't contain the word "City", and instead uses something more like "Settlement" or "Place". DDStretch (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I have my doubts about going wider than UK due to complexity issues. What I like about the amount of automation is that this template makes it much easier for inexperienced editors to add this template. I would have preferred more with respect to constituent county ref Cornwall and Orkney (no disrespect to any editor intended whatsoever) but that would cause more difficulties with the template coding I understand. Regan123 22:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Northern Ireland
Is there a desire to add Northern Ireland to the infobox? MRSC • Talk 13:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
While they are in the UK, it would make sense. When/if they leave, probably not. However, I am not from the province, so that is just an opinion. I do know things are special over there and that many people may not want to be associated with the UK, although from a neutrality pov, they probably should be for now. Perhaps. MRM 15:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to have NI included in the Infobox formatting on grounds on verifiability. However, I suppose the acid test is the systems of geography and administration used; being on Ireland, I'm presuming there is a wholly different system used. I guess also there would have to be demand from the NI editting community. Jhamez84 15:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I think NI has a unique situation with exceptional circumstances. Although, the information could be included in the template, I am personally wary of changing NI Infoboxes over just in case this causes causes upset amongst editors in the province. It may be the case that they are officially in the UK, however, AFAICT in some areas large numbers identify more strongly with Ireland than the UK.
Therefore, I think it has to be an issue for those involved in particular articles to change over and use the new box. That of course then brings about the issue of consistency between articles, so we have to ask whether it is really a good idea.
Incidentally, without knowing the full situation, I also question the sensibility of using the Ireland infobox in NI. IMHO, using either Ireland/UK boxes in NI could at worst be regarded as POV and at best make some readers question Wikipedia's neutrality.
As Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, the question should not be "Is there a desire to include Northern Ireland.." but rather, "Why is Northern Ireland not included.." This is good work on standardisation by the way. Actually, I hadn't noticed that the original templates had been changed to a different one. Last I knew, work was ongoing for a Northern Irish place template, as discussed on the talk page of the Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board. -- Mal 09:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
{{Infobox Irish Place|
name = Belfast |
gaeilge = Béal Feirste |
scots = Bilfawst |
crest image = Belfast city CoA painting.png |
motto = Pro Tanto Quid Retribuamus <br>"What shall we give in return for so much" |
map image = NorthernIrelandBelfast.png |
pin coords = left: 158px; top: 81px |
north coord = 54.596 |
west coord = 5.914 |
area = 115 km² |
province = Ulster |
county = [[County Antrim]] |
NI district = [[Belfast City Council|Belfast]]|
UK constituency = [[Belfast North (UK Parliament constituency)|Belfast North]]</br>[[Belfast South (UK Parliament constituency)|Belfast South]]</br>[[Belfast East (UK Parliament constituency)|Belfast East]]</br>[[Belfast West (UK Parliament constituency)|Belfast West]]|
EU constituency = [[Northern Ireland (European Parliament constituency)|Northern Ireland]]|
population = 276,459 |
population note = <br/><small>[[Belfast Metropolitan Area|Metropolitan Area]]:<br> 579,276 </small> |
stdcode = 028, +44 28|
posttown = Belfast|
postcode = BT1-BT17, BT29 (part of), BT58|
census yr = 2001 |
web = www.belfastcity.gov.uk |
|}}
I'm going to add the remaing fields for NI. It can't do any harm, the worst thing that can happen is that they will be unused. It will not affect the rest of the template. I suppose I should move the template back to its original name? MRSC • Talk 06:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It is definitely worth treading carefully when approaching this. MRSC • Talk 12:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with a removal of the flag field. -- Mal 00:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I also think the flag field may cause unnecessary friction and unwanted disputes for certain parts of what is currently the UK. DDStretch (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Preumably the red locator dot functionality, as indicated in the link I gave above will be, or is, included on this template? -- Mal 00:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added the Northern Ireland & Greater Belfast map_type options to the template. WOSlinker 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
AWB ideas
I've been trying to get my head round AWB. From a brief trial of its features, what I think might be a good technique is updating articles on a district-by-district basis as that is the lowest level that the structure will be the same and there will be the most common elements that can be pre-selected; the rest will be picked up or discarded from the original syntax. Has anyone had any success constructing the arguments? MRSC • Talk 13:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Have experimented with the easier bits. A dump of the settings is at User:Pit-yacker/Sandbox3. i.e. simple find and replace and deleteing specified redundant parameters. Pit-yacker 02:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok have a "working-ish" version at User:Pit-yacker/Sandbox3. It currently has a couple of problems with new-lines, I think one of these might be bugs with AWB - especially as they seem to be sporadically added into the configuration????. These are just a problem from the point of view of the edit page - a slightly inelegant fix is that they can be tidied in the edit window.
It works on a "Garbage In - Garbage Out" principle. At the moment it isnt tested thoroughly either - so I dont know if there are some circumstances that might not work properly - again these can be picked up in edit window. Could someone also check that I have interpreted the arrangement of the infoboxes correctly please?
It is also a slightly "dumb" version - when there are multiple values to a parameter it just ties them all to the single base new one rather than using the extra ones. For example, a place with more than one post code district will currently have all values put in postcode_district= rather than using postcode_district1=,etc. Multiple Postcode areas probably wont work properly. Pit-yacker 03:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow. It looks as if you're most of the way there. I doubt it will be possible to get to complete automation because of some of the splits of things like postal areas. MRSC • Talk 17:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Straw polls
Ceremonial county
This is currently included only where a place is not in a shire or metropolitan county. Instead, this should be included in an "other" section on all articles.
Support
Owain (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Less confusing this way, and nothing to do with administration.
MonMan 15:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC) This is useful information, doesn't take up much space, and is not liable to frequent changes (unlike the political boundaries). I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopædia?
This is currently not included. Instead, this should be included in an "other" section on all articles.
Support
Owain (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC) As per other templates (substantially peer-reviewed) that this is supposedly replacing.
Yorkshire Phoenix 08:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC) The removal of historic counties is simply an outrage. The arguments being used to slim down the infobox bring in to question the appropriateness of infoboxes altogether: isn't this supposed to be an encyclopædia, not some children's factfinder book with pretty boxes showing simplified (and in this case factually misleading) information?
MonMan 15:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC) [explanation as above!]
Iceage77 06:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Multiple independent reliable sources vs. pure original research. (Note: this is only the fourth edit of this brand new User account. He/she has only edited one other article. -- Mais oui! 08:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC))
DJR (T) 01:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC) - articles should begin with current information and explain old stuff in the content. Infoboxes are for current information.
Discussion
Is it possible that people could put an explanation here? Owain (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The talk page explains everything. MRSC • Talk 11:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
An explanation of their decision! This entire debate is backwards - people should be explaining why they want to take away verifiable information that many editors have added over the years. Owain (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The intention was to try to make the infobox more compact and to review the contents with a view to making those more concise and relevant. There's a view (SilkTork) that wants none of it, there's yourself who wants all of it. I believe the answer lies somewhere in between.
Perhaps the information can be commented out in this version (i.e non-displayed fields), see if anyone misses it! Kbthompson 11:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely it should have all the information, but be collapsible with a show/hide button like most modern navigation templates? That is surely the best compromise? Owain (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Making Ceremonial County compulsory merely brings duplication to those articles which already have county in some other form. I thought part of the idea of this infobox was to reduce the size of a box that currently overwhelms many of the articles. I'm currently abstaining on Historical County - in those cases where there is no change it should definitely stay out - if we must have it, perhaps there should be some sort of match that leaves it out when they are equal? As for the cases where it is different, in such cases, AFAICT there are sometimes numerous historical counties, and these changes have often been made at various points throughout time not just 1974! Surely this suggests dates should be provided - in which case it starts to get silly. This also raises the issue of what we regard as an historical county. Is Cleveland a historical county? Also how are tiny "outposts" of a county verified?Pit-yacker 15:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
If there was a better description than "historic" for the counties, then why not. Historic signifies that the people there may still identify with that region, which may, or may not be the case. In particular, for the Historic counties, I've seen Lewis defined as historically part of Rossshire, which is quite a deviation from the actual position. Locally, the old administrative division is seen as a bit of an accident, and an unfortunate one at that, but it has its roots in the Lords of the Isles also being the Earls of Rossshire. Should there be some better description of the old administrative division, I'll either remove my vote against it or move it the other way. I have removed my vote against the ceremonial one, but only because I can't honestly say I've ever heard of a ceremonial county in Scotland. MRM 15:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
We could put in the infobox, for say Hackney, "was in Middlesex until 1889, County of London until 1965". This would at least be factually accurate. But is any of it actually needed? MRSC • Talk 16:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
With regards the ceremonial county in Scotland, the equavalent is the Lieutenancy areas of Scotland. Under this proposal they would form a seperate "other" section on their own rather as they appear currently on Lewis, thus increasing the size of the infobox. MRSC • Talk 16:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know whether it is needed, but as you say, it would be factually accurate. However, there would have to be quite a bit of data hidden in the infobox to create that. For the ceremonial, thanks for the info, I'll vote against those. MRM 16:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
For this example you would need:
previous_division_name = County of London
previous_division_end_year = 1965
previous_division_name1 = Middlesex
previous_division_end_year1 = 1889
There would need to be some extra fields to cope with split places and other more complex histories. MRSC • Talk 16:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
With the example of London Borough of Hackney, this already has links to the Metropolitan Boroughs that formed it, and if those are followed, in some cases goes back to the parish level. This is all in the text. Is there any need to repeat it in the infobox? Kbthompson 16:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Owain, we've already had the debate and you wouldn't accept the result! This straw poll is intended to reinforce it. You had the opportunity for debate but instead starting making unfounded accuasations. MRSC • Talk 15:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
In response to MRM: The previous Wikipedia consensus was to refer to them as "traditional counties", but it was gradually changed to "historic counties" as per Encyclopædia Britannica. The true legal name is "Ancient or geographic counties", but this is a bit of a mouthful, so "Ancient county" is another possible compromise name. As regards the county of London, that was never a historic/ancient county, but an administrative county as per the LGA 1889, so stating "Middlesex until 1889, then London until 1965" wouldn't be strictly accurate. The ancient or geographic county is still Middlesex. Owain (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a misleading summary. Ancient or geographic counties is a shortly lived census term which refers to the boundaries of the counties before the Local Government Act 1888. This Act created administrative counties (the area of a county under the control of a county council) but these are not counties. The Act gives a seperate schedule of these, including the new County of London. To say the County of London is just an administrative county is innacurate. In the example of Hackney, it ceased to be in the county of Middlesex and became part of the County of London. The county and administrative county were the same in this case as the County of London had no major divisions or county boroughs so there was one county council and one administrative county with it. But we have been here before, many times. MRSC • Talk 19:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the notion that we need to be succinct in the infobox would tend to rule out unnecessary information. The inclusion of information which is poorly defined would also tend to be inappropriate, especially since any attempt to clarify the cases where a place has been in a number of counties in the past would be carried out in the main text if so desired. For this reason, I believe it should be omitted. Any desire to give the counties in which a place was allocated during its history should, I think, result in it being placed in an appropriate section in the main text of an article. It is, for example, what I am attempting to do with what could also be called the "historic parish" information. I would not think appropriate to include "historic parish" or "ecclesiastical parish" or even "historic ecclesiastical parish" in this infobox, yet these might be as equally important to many local people as the "historic county". Indeed, for some of the purposes of tracing family history and registrations of births, marriages, and deaths, it might even be more useful. DDStretch (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not poorly defined though. It's very well-defined; there is a specific legal meaning of "ancient or geographic county" or "historic county" as used by Encyclopædia Britannica. To use the Hackney example again, one does not need to mention the past administrative border changes, but the present ones alongside the ancient county. To quote from Britannica: "inner borough of London, in the historic county of Middlesex." Owain (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Britannica is a tertiary source and cannot therefore be used. The text you quote tells us what county Hackney was in, historically. It makes no assertions as to the continued existence of Middlesex, which is the nub of your argument. MRSC • Talk 19:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Specific legal meaning and (you said further up) true legal name - these assersions are nonsense. There is nothing in academic texts, journals or original legislation that even implies this. These are the kind of lies which started this mess in the first place. MRSC • Talk 19:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask people to reflect before posting. There's still plenty of time before this goes live, and perhaps it would be best to give some space for others to make their points. Perhaps, a self imposed limit of two comments a day? Just a point, it's a discussion. Kbthompson 20:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
It is a bit two-sided, but it is wrong to ignore glaring innacuracies presented as fact. Where things such as this have not been challenged in the past, this has been misconstrued as acceptance. MRSC • Talk 20:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
There was certainly something called Ancient Counties refered to in the 1891 and 1911 censuses [4]. This was probably because parliamentary constituencies were based upon the pre-1889 counties until about 1920. I have no idea where the geographic bit came from. We have already discovered that most of what the traditional counties people say is nonsense. Like for example the claim that Ancient and Geographic counties were preserved by the Local Government Act 1888. Having looked into it we discovered it did no such thing. Having said that I am not 100% sure that historic counties should be removed from the infoboxes, as they may be useful for people researching family history etc (about the only thing historic counties are used for these days, perhaps along with county cricket). G-Man* 23:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that the historic county field needs to be included in the infobox for the benefit of people researching family histories: such information should be included in any decent article in its "History" or history-related section, which is where a lot of other stuff would be found that isn't also included. For example, ecclesiastical parish, both current and historical, and historical civil parish might be found there. This information about both types of parish would be even more useful to researchers into family history than any notion of "historic county", but I think it would be quite inappropriate to include any except the current civil parish in the infobox. Let all of the others be in a properly-written history section, or somewhere dealing with the history of the subject of the article. DDStretch (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I surpose you're right, voted against. G-Man* 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a brown tourist sign by the way. Alton Towers, Chesington etc have them. Regan123 23:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I couldn't tell on my black and white monitor. Iceage77 23:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I consider that the extent to which the tourist road sign is wrong is matched by the extent to which it is an authoritative source. DDStretch (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with User:MRSC - the fact that something has got through in the past does not necessarily add any weight if it is being re-debated in the present. DJR (T) 01:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Brown tourist signs are paid for, ordered and updated (as and when) by the attraction itself - not councils or governments for the record. For those asserting that former counties are useful in infoboxes for family tree research, and intending not to troll here, census returns were compiled according to administrative counties, not historic ones, once the system changed; hence my ancestors were unfortunate enough to be from the County of Oldham(!). Our decendants will look for us according to our ceremonial county[5]. That said, every UK settlement article should have a good Civic history section outlining any geo-administrative changes per the UK Geography WikiProject. It seems the straw poll and reference material makes a clear case for this material to be placed there, not the infobox. Jhamez84 01:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Consensus re-confirmed?
As everyone who has been involved in this template seems to have voted (and some who haven't) can we draw some conclusions? As far as I can see the consensus that was already evident from earlier discussions is reconfirmed. MRSC • Talk 11:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd second that. DJR (T) 01:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd third that. We need to move forwards and have a 9 to 4 vote. This type of material is typically overturned anyway (e.g.) though providing the opportunity again here demonstrated good community ethics and a willingness to take on board suggestions. Jhamez84 01:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
What is the intention for this template?
I've been directed here from discussions on a London place template. But am I in the right place? Is the intention to have the same template for all places? The same template for a city as for an informal, non-official area, such as Soho and Bloomsbury? How would that work? Would people have the option to not include information such as Services, which are the responsibility of a local authority, rather than a non-official neighbourhood? SilkTork 08:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The primary intention was to produce a template which uses much less space but has similar output. It was your edits to the London template to reduce width/height which provided the initial motivation to construct this one. See (much further) above for two side-by-side examples, you will see the output is much smaller. MRSC • Talk 08:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
O wow! Yes. That's so much better. Smaller, neater and clearer. Brilliant stuff. It looks more attractive and more professional. Of course, I still have questions about the content because places are different, and if a place has no responsibility for services, for example, then it would be inappropriate for service details to be included. SilkTork 08:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Through the use of optional fields and switches, it has been possible to isolate certain information so that it is only activated in the relevant contexts. However, I have a feeling that what you are suggesting might be challenging something that has been somewhat assumes throughout this process, with regards to services being stated when they are not the responsibility of the "place" being mentioned. I think it has been assumed that the use of broader service information (i.e. The Met for anywhere in London) is fairly self-explanatory. DJR (T) 01:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Size of Infobox when printing out articles
I like to print out articles on areas that I am visiting. I just printed out Brighton and was surprised at the amount of space taken by the Infobox. This appears to be because the OS grid reference has a link, and the link is printed out in full, expanding the width of the box to 3/4 of the page. Is there a way of preventing this from happening? SilkTork 22:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added a <span class="plainlinksneverexpand"></span> around the grid reference to stoping it being expanded when printed WOSlinker 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Shown within X
I've provisionally upgraded the infobox at the Shaw and Crompton article. I think it looks good, but have we considered including somehow a message that could say "Shown within X" depending on what map is selected? (So X being Greater Manchester in this case).
I think this would be a significant improvement in providing a wider national and international context, but I'm unsure if it is technically feasible. If it is feasible, I think it should use the "<small></small>" text, and with X being linked. Jhamez84 01:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added it to the GM map. There was no easy way to do it universally, but this gives local projects the option to add a caption to their maps if they want. I'm not that fussed about it going on the London maps, for example. MRSC • Talk 05:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm sure London will be able to stand on its own, but if we have maps in the future specific to other city-regions, this approach may well be the most helpful. Thanks again, Jhamez84 16:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
NI / Renaming
As NI is now fully functional, I'm going to move this template back to Template:Infobox UK place and fix the incoming links. MRSC • Talk 06:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This is complete. This template name should be used from now on. MRSC • Talk 06:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
08:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC) The removal of historic counties is simply an outrage. The arguments being used to slim down the infobox bring in to question the appropriateness of infoboxes altogether: isn't this supposed to be an encyclopædia, not some children's factfinder book with pretty boxes showing simplified (and in this case factually misleading) information?
.svg){kind=small}
![[4]](http://www.qub.ac.uk/cdda/gis/Im1891d.jpg){kind=link}