Template talk:Infobox UK place

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Template:Infobox UK place:

  • Complete roll-out to all UK articles:
4 January 2018
Infobox Transclusions
Template:Infobox UK place 23,156

Template protected edit request[edit]

The “country” section should be appear “constituent country” to make it clearer as some people see the terms “country” and “sovereign state” as the same. IWI (chat) 21:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

This change was made in 2009 to "reduce text overflow" in the infobox. See this discussion. Maybe experiment in the sandbox to see how the spacing is affected? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Martin's response reads like an sb response to me. Marking inactive while awaiting sandbox edits. Cabayi (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@Cabayi:Done. IWI (chat) 16:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Wales unitary authorities[edit]

There is a problem with the "unitary_wales" parameter sometimes not bringing up the local pushpin map. For example "Merthyr Tydfil" brings up the Merthyr Tydfil County Borough map, but links to the town of Merthyr Tydfil in the text below the map. Using "Merthyr Tydfil County Borough" defaults to the the pushpin map to the whole of Wales. Is there some way of correcting this, so the wikilink links to the unitary authority and not the town? This doesn't appear to be a problem for other Wales unitary authorities, for example Conwy County Borough or Wrexham County Borough. Sionk (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request[edit]

This is the diff that I have done on the sandbox. The current format for the caption is redundant (you can refer to this essay or indeed MOS:CAP). I’m not sure if I made this edit right, but I am sure you can see my intention. People know what the map shows: the place they are reading about. The "Constituent country" is the correct name to refer to them, something I already discussed above. IWI (chat) 18:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for editing the sandbox and not making us template editors do all of the heavy lifting. I appreciate it.
Comments: The change to "constituent country" seems non-obvious to me, since the word "constituent" appears only once within Countries of the United Kingdom, where I would expect to see the term used and explained. As for your proposed caption edit, is it doing what you expect? I don't see your proposed new wording showing at Template:Infobox UK place/testcases. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Jonesey95 This is the format usually used via Infobox settlement. I regret that I attempted to change the caption but don’t know exactly how to do so. IWI (chat) 16:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 Partly done: I have adjusted the sandbox to show "Location within ..." instead of "PLACENAME shown within ..." under the map. You can see the results in the sandbox versions at Template:Infobox UK place/testcases. So it appears to work. Now the question is: is there consensus to implement this change in the main template? – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. It is obvious what the map shows, especially since the pins have labels. This is a standard on pages using the settlement template, I'd say that could be considered here. I’d implement it per WP:BOLD, they’re not exactly massive changes. IWI (chat) 22:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: For more local scale maps, there seems to be a problem; it’s not displaying on the testcases (On the top example). IWI (chat) 22:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The top example uses a custom map caption. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jonesey95:Yes, you are right. I think this should be implemented though, it's not controversial at all. No structural changes to the template. Nobody will discuss this in reality. IWI (chat) 01:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Let's give it a week. If nobody comments here, I will be happy to implement it. Just ping me here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I, for one, support this map caption change. -- Dr Greg  talk  11:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Partial Support would support the change to location field but am not really supportive of the other change to the Constituent Country, Country is just fine. Keith D (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


Problems noted from the testcases -

  • Under the section 'Proposed Changes by Bellezzasolo (with custom map caption)' the caption appears to still have the article name in it.
  • Under the section 'Custom location map' there is no caption at all.

Keith D (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Partial Oppose Like Keith D, I think Country is fine without that change to "Constituent Country" for the simple fact that this seem to be a word thought up for this purpose - Are there any reliable sources for the use of this term? As for the other proposal, I suspend my opinion until I've seen a mock-up of what the template would look like before and after the change, as suggested, below (by John Maynard Friedman ).  DDStretch  (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
(Note added later) Oh, I see the proposal has been withdrawn.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ddstretch: The fact of the matter is, there is no reliable source describing them as a "country" either, but only as a "part". Since the 4 countries make up one whole sovereign state, they are constituent entities of the UK, but since people commonly call them "countries", "constituent country" is the most appropriate name. In case you don’t know, the definition of the word "constituent" is "part of a whole", which is virtually the same as the government's official name "part". IWI (chat) 17:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh and in reference to the perceived problems by Keith D, that happens because a custom caption is being used using a parameter, so the default was overridden. There is no issue. And no, the proposal has not been withdrawn. IWI (chat) 17:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I seriously, yet gently, suggest that your statement (that there are no reliable sources using the term "country" for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales) is not true. I was the instigator of a massive group editing operation about 10 or so years ago which involved a trawl through as many reliable sources as possible to come to a settled position on how to describe them. We found very many reliable sources that used the word "country" to describe them, and the summary table was included in Countries of the United Kingdom. I was absent from wikipedia for some years, and when I returned, I found that table had been removed, rather regrettably, I think. I cannot easily locate a time when that table was there. Perhaps we should try to find it and reinsert it as it does seem worthy of an encyclopaedia and would be very helpful, because, since then, the disputes about what to call them have resumed. Your addition of "constituent" seems to be a case of original research, even though it has been done from the best of intentions.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The suggestion that I’ve invented this term is absurd, I’m sorry but I didn’t. What I meant to say was, at the official level, they are referred to as "parts"; "constituent" is just another way of saying this. IWI (chat) 18:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
For example, see the fully-referenced tables included in the old revision pointed to by this link here. And consequently, I withdraw and apologise for thinking and writing that your use of "constituent country" is original research. However, it does seem to be eclipsed by the simple term, "country".  DDStretch  (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Look at the references. There are plenty of reliable sources that use "country", unless you want to say that your sources outweigh those.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I think if what you identify as your principle reliable sources write "parts", then that is what you should use. I do not agree that we should change what terms the sources use. If you had cited your principle reliable sources, then it would be clear that you should not be doing this.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ddstretch: Here they are referred to as parts. It is a parliamentary act, surely outweighing others. Also, "constituent country" helps to disambiguate from "sovereign state". Our foreign friends may confuse these as "country" is more commonly synonymous with "sovereign state". IWI (chat) 20:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
In the infobox, "country" and "sovereign state" appear immediately one after the other, so I can't see how anyone could be confused. Additionally the word "country" is linked to "Countries of the United Kingdom" where further information can be found. So I see no need for change in this template. -- Dr Greg  talk  21:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Dr Greg: I'm saying that people might not be aware of what a sovereign state is, and may refer to them all as "countries", without realising it. This could create confusion, especially to non-British people who may not understand these differences. Also, most people won't click the link. "Constituent country" could make people aware that it refers to the "country within a country" as the word "constituent" suggests; it describes exactly what it is in two words in a non-ambiguous way, which is what we should strive for. IWI (chat) 22:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok. So I still object to the changes as well. If the principle reliable source the proposer is referring to uses "parts", then the proposer really should have used that term if they are not going to use the much more referred to "country". Furthermore, because the whole area is so contentious, one needs reliable sources to back all this up. The fact that people may not understand a term is no excuse for using a different term which is hardly ever (up to 10 years ago at least) used compared with "country". We have a duty to educate people here. If we merely pandered to what people might understand, we would be faced with called United Kingdom "England", given the preponderance of American usage here and elsewhere. This would certainly be inaccurate as well as inflammatory. I think, as another issue, we should think about reinstating those large tables in Countries of the United Kingdom, as well.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
On the London article, along with other major cities, "constituent country" is used via Infobox Settlemet. In any case, nobody objects to my other proposal, so that should be done. IWI (chat) 08:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: You can implement the map caption changes only for now as nobody objects to those. Don't implement the other, constituent country, change yet. IWI (chat) 18:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Gathering indications of tentative support[edit]

In my opinion, the infobox obscures its purpose for using boldface text when all of the sub-headings are given bold. Before seeking to tone it down, I'd like to hear the opinions of other interested editors. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

May t I suggest that you create an example of what you have in mind in your sandbox, so we can see what it would look like. I'm having difficulty seeing any great problem with the current version. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'll work-up an example. Thanks.--John Cline (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
It happens that a person can look at an identical situation, differentiated only by an interval of time, and yet see the details in an inexplicably different way. This has happened to me upon reviewing this thread. I find that I agree completely with John Maynard Friedman in saying "I'm having difficulty seeing any great problem with the current version"; I'm not seeing any problems at all, in fact, and am confused as to what I perceived problematic earlier. Everything is pretty darn normal and I'd like to bow gracefully out of discussing the matter any further. Thank you for understanding (I hope that you do) and thank you for indulging my err.--John Cline (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)