This template is within the scope of WikiProject Sheffield, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sheffield on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This template has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The template is very large. Is there a need for it? If there is, perhaps one for areas of Sheffield would suffice - the list of buildings, landmarks and locations is highly arbitrary and best suited to a category. Warofdreams 11:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're right, it is large. I originally thought just to do the districts, but I added in the buildings etc... as an after-thought. I've sat on this idea for a couple of weeks, but decided that rather than procrastinate I should just make the template and see what people think. My original thoughts stemmed from the fact that these two lists are currently on the Sheffield page where they stand out like a sore thumb. I wasn't sure what (if anything) to do with them and then, in my browsing of other wikipedia, I found a number of cities (eg Birmingham, Chicago) that have templates for their districts. I think that for these cities it gives a unified feeling when browsing through the districts of a city and I think that it would be good if the same were true for Sheffield. Maybe the whole thing is already adequately covered by the Sheffield category. That is why, rather than just going round attaching it to all the Sheffield articles, I have just attached it to a few and asked for comments. JeremyA 04:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, I agree that a list of areas of Sheffield could prove useful. Should it be restricted to wards, or aim for a complete list of every named area of Sheffield? On the other hand, the list of buildings etc (which I originally created some time ago) could probably be removed from the Sheffield article - if they are sufficiently notable, they can be mentioned in the text. Thanks, by the way, for testing it out on a few pages and asking for feedback - it's an excellent way to build consensus. Warofdreams 10:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Interesting idea. I may be misinterpreting (or just overstretching) what you are suggesting, but going with the Wards is possibly a good way to go. As there are not currently pages for each of the 28 wards these would have to be created. I think that the current mish-mash of 'locality' articles that we have (mostly stubs and redlinks anyway) could be grouped together and integrated into these ward pages (leaving redirects from every currently named page to the respective ward). I have made a quick draft demonstrating what I mean for the Ecclesall ward—something like this this could replace the current Ecclesall, Millhouses, and Ringinglow articles and also get rid of the Greystones and Bent's Green redlinks. We could deal with the buildings/landmarks/institutions by mentioning the notable ones in each ward on the respective ward page (with links to articles on any buildings notable enough to have their own article) JeremyA 04:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Basic rational - template merged was not fit for purpose, confusing to someone outside sheffield, with no indication of the type of place
Merge rational - both templates covered "places in sheffield" - a merged template is much more useful for finding places in template - which is the purpose
The problem with the Template:Districts of Sheffield was that the list of places was unorganised, and lumped under the blanked term "districts" - it included links to villages, suburbs, and electoral wards. I've reorganised this a merged with this similar template - splitting the places by "village", "suburb" "parish" etc. Possibly further organisation can make it better - eg I considered "inner city suburbs", also "industrial suburbs"
Also, at the same time I did a similar clarification on Category:Districts of Sheffield which has similar problems with being confusing for people not familiar to sheffield -eg I added sub cats - housing estates, villages, suburbs etc. As above this can be further improved.
Please check for mistakes. Thanks.Oranjblud (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)