Template talk:Infobox settlement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Auto" density should compute based on land area, not total area[edit]

This conversation has been revived from the archives, and tagged to prevent autoarchiving. Remove the {{DNAU}} tag upon completion of this discussion.

Population density has to do with settle-able area. While there are cities with "houseboat" units, these are never a significant portion of any particular settlement and, if there were such a settlement, it ought to use a different template. I fear that a lot of the listed densities for cities are wrong due to this error. Zelbinian (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

100% agree. See Lauderdale-by-the-Sea, Florida whose actual population density is 6,913 persons/sqmi (when calculated based on land area) and not 3,900 persons/sqmi (when calculated based on total area). 70.42.69.221 (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
If the land area is given, sure. But if only the total area is known, the template should still display a density. —Stepheng3 (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
how about if we add the option for "density_km2 = land" to have it use the land area? Frietjes (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
We shouldn't have different instances of this template displaying values calculated using different methods, under the same heading. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Reviving this conversation... I agree with Andy Mabbett, yet I must say that this is a valid request, and I think Stepheng3's suggestion is sound – that is, if |area_land_*= is specified, then use it, else use |area_total_*=. The U.S. Census computes and reports density using land area. Note the following, from Census.gov Geographic Definitions -- Population Density:

"Population and housing unit density are computed by dividing the total population or number of housing units within a geographic entity (for example, United States, state, county, place) by the land area of that entity measured in square kilometers or square miles. Density is expressed as both "people (or housing units) per square kilometer" and "people (or housing units) per square mile" of land area." (emphasis added)

For many communities, the difference is negligible, but for others, this is significant. In Provincetown, Massachusetts, for example, with a 2010 total population of 2,942, a total area of 17.5 sq. miles, and land area of 9.7 sq. mi., the density is being calculated as 168, where it should be 304. Provincetown (CDP), Massachusetts is even more substantial, where the present formula yields a density of 505, when it should calculate to 1479. Anyone have a problem adding an {{edit protected}} request? Grollτech (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Please don't do that until you've found or written code that would permit this. It's a very good idea, but you need to make it plain for non-tech-savvy admins like me. Nyttend (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
US Census data is not mandatory for that field. If WP would only show US Census data, it would be much smaller. But the field should show where the value comes from, i.e. "Density (Land)" or "Density (Land+Water)" or show both if there is a diff. NVanMinh (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
There's nothing more reliable than the Census Bureau, so we should use Census Bureau results for the fields in question. However, I don't understand why you bring this up here; could you explain why you mention it? Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
If nobody who's already familiar with this template's code is available to make the change, I'd be happy to go ahead and code the changes in the sandbox. NVanMinh, I understand that U.S. Census data isn't mandatory for the field, and that this is a global (not U.S.-centric) template. However, it is obvious that the 'area', 'population' and 'density' fields within this infobox are based on the Census Bureau's data model. More importantly, as the OP stated, "Population density has to do with settle-able area." This view is consistent with the population density article, which defines biological population density as "population divided by total land area or water volume, as appropriate." Since humans are the subject biota of {{Infobox settlement}}, Land Area is really the only valid basis for computing density. And yet, since this template presently provides the "courtesy" of automatic calcs based on Total Area, it should probably continue to do so, but only if the value for "Land Area" is absent – in that instance, it may be appropriate to annotate the result with something like "(based on Total Area)"? Grollτech (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Infobox settlement
Area
 • City 100.105 sq mi (259.27 km2)
 • Land 97.915 sq mi (253.60 km2)
 • Urban 246.8 sq mi (639 km2)
 • Metro 357.9 sq mi (927 km2)
Population (2010)
 • City 466,488
 • Estimate (2011) 477,891
 • Density 4,700/sq mi (1,800/km2)
 • Urban 1,440,000
 • Urban density 5,800/sq mi (2,300/km2)
 • Metro 2,600,000
 • Metro density 7,300/sq mi (2,800/km2)
Geobox
settlement
Area 100.105 sq mi (259 km2)
 - land 97.915 sq mi (254 km2)
 - urban 246.8 sq mi (639 km2)
 - metro 357.9 sq mi (927 km2)
Population 466,488 (2010)
 - urban 1,440,000
 - metro 2,600,000
Density 4,660 / sq mi (1,799 / km2)
 - urban 5,835 / sq mi (2,253 / km2)
 - metro 7,265 / sq mi (2,805 / km2)
I agree with the suggested change, but to make it simpler I would keep the title Density if calculated based on area_total and use the title Density (land) if calculated based on area_land. I also have two related suggestions that I think should be implemented at the same time:
Suggestion #1: To the far right is an infobox with population_total (for an official census) and population_est (for a more recent estimate). As can be seen in the example (or by examining Template:Infobox settlement/densdisp), the auto density calculation is currently population_total divided by area_total (4660 which the template rounds to 4700), not divided by population_est (4774 which would be rounded to 4800). However, this may not be clear to the reader since the density appears below the estimated population. Therefore I suggest that the density be displayed above the estimate, immediately below the total population, as is done with both the urban and metro population densities (note: Geobox uses a different order, which is all populations first, followed by all densities).
Suggestion #2: The auto density calculation should be rounded to the nearest whole number. In the examples to the right, the auto density calculation in Template:Geobox rounds to 4660 (the nearest whole number) but Template:Infobox municipality rounds to 4700. This is handled in Template:Infobox settlement/densdisp which appears to round the number based on its order of magnitude. If there is no good reason to do this, that code could be simplified to always display a whole number. If there is a good reason to leave it as is, then I suggest the addition of a parameter named population_density_round (such as exists in Template:Geobox) which could override the default rounding for the auto calculated density.
-- Zyxw (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Proposed title created as a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)



Template:Infobox settlementTemplate:Infobox populated place – We've already named the settlement categories to "Populateed place" categories. Additionally, this name is more NPOV in some places - for example, to call Tel Aviv a settlement is to claim that Israel has no rights to it. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support, See also the recent discussion Template talk:Infobox_settlement/Archive_24#Name_change.3F for more arguments. CRwikiCA talk 18:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The name of the template isn't seen by readers, so NPOV is not an issue. If there's a problem at the Tel Aviv article, use one of the template's many redirects, such as {{Infobox City}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Another proposal The corresponding article is called Human settlement and Populated place is only a redirect to it. We can rename Template:Infobox settlement to Template:Infobox human settlement to avoid any confusion with Israeli settlements. Template:Infobox populated place is also ok, I don't think that the name is very important as long as it is not visible to the reader. Avpop (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose because 10's of thousands of articles are already using it. If any place doesn't like the name of the template, then use one of the aliases to it. This is a silly waste of time. • SbmeirowTalk • 18:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Better to leave the name as it is, and use an alias or a redirect. I do not favor the proposed "Infobox populated place" name either because not every article that uses this template is a "populated place" per se. Some are ghost towns or abandoned areas with zero population. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as waste of time. There are redirects in place, and the title is not seen by readers anyway. Maybe the title was not the best choice indeed, but it's been around for, how many, 10 years?, and is used in several hundred thousand articles, thus should be treated under some kind of grandfather clause. Don't fix if ain't broken. No such user (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying edit all these thousands of pages; we have several grandfather-clause redirects around. I'm saying rename the one template, and possibly list it at WP:AWB/TR (these redirects shouldn't be bypassed without a real edit being done to the page, anyway), so the amount of wasted time is small. And the number of pages with this tag directly on them is significantly smaller than the 425801 transclusions listed at this page - many of them actually have redirects to it, such as {{Infobox Settlement}} (15397). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • support, so long as we keep all the redirects, and we block/ban any editor seen pointlessly replacing the redirects. Frietjes (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template-protected edit request on 2 July 2014[edit]

I want to add a police and fire department badge organized like the flag thing. Thelogoontherun (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Why? The article is about the town, not about the Fire and Police departments, so why should their badge get such a prominent place? Just including them in the article itself would suffice I would think. CRwikiCA talk 18:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I thought we wanted to move away from the flag thing. • SbmeirowTalk • 18:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Precision in auto density calculations[edit]

Why isn't the precision should be set to \min(\text{sigfigs of area}, \text{sigfigs of population})? TLA 3x ♭ 02:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Location of pop_est_footnotes[edit]

The location of the output of "pop_est_footnotes" field seems to always be on a new line following the estimate line, BUT if I put anything in the "population_note" field then it works. It appears that "population_note" pushes all field text to the right a little bit. Please investigate discuss this weirdness. • SbmeirowTalk • 10:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have an example? CRwikiCA talk 13:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmm, I tried it again, now I don't see it. I'm 100% sure that I saw it before I left this post. • SbmeirowTalk • 15:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Did you use the same browser in both cases? CRwikiCA talk 16:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, IE11 on the same computer running Windows 7 64-bit. I just now check it with Chrome 36 on the same computer, and it looks fine. Maybe I saw it when I clicked the "Show Preview" button, but I tried it again in the last hour and don't see the issue there either. Maybe someone was messing with a lower-level template that caused this issue? If I see it again, I'll respond. • SbmeirowTalk • 16:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)