Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 23

Template-protected edit request

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)


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)
I have published the caption change as it has been around for about a month with no objections. Keith D (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

{{Infobox settlement}}

Been doing a lot of Infobox consolidation lately. Wondering if someone can give some background as to why this template is separate from {{Infobox settlement}}? On the surface it would seem that a UK place is just a settlement that is in the UK. Is there a specific reason for a separate template? What about a specific reason why this cannot simply be a wrapper? Thanks in advance! --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Have you looked through the archives? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

{{{type}}}

The doc displays "{{{type}}}" but type not documented. Where does the value come from? What does it represent? 77.191.170.43 (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not filled in in all cases. It's to provide a very short description of the type of place. See for example Red Roses or Eglwyscummin. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Services in Scotland

At present, infoboxes for Scottish places say "Scottish" for all three services. Would it not be better to change this to the actual names, i.e. Police Scotland, Scottish Fire and Rescue and Scottish Ambulance Service? This would certainly make more sense for the Police. After all, it is Police Scotland and not Police Scottish or Scottish Police. At the very least, the Police field should be changed from Scottish to Scotland. --Adam Black GB (talk) 02:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the Police link to say Scotland. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 4 December 2019

Change
civil_parish AND civil_parish1AND civil_parish2
To
civil_parish AND civil_parish1 AND civil_parish2

82.14.227.91 (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: {{edit template-protected}} is usually not required for edits to the documentation, categories, or interlanguage links of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks 82.14.227.91 (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleting European Parliament constituencies from 31 January 2020

To flag it up: is someone with edit authority primed to delete the "European Parliament" section on 31 January 2020, when the UK leaves the European Union? LG02 (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I have setup the sandbox to remove that section which needs to go live later today. Keith D (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Shrinkable infoboxes

Hi is there anyway we can allow for a shrinkable infobox if the article is a small stub and the infobox is like five times the length? It makes it look so ugly. Kinlochard if that was just a map and image and the box shrunk it would look so much smarter.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 February 2020

Please change template calls listed, to eliminate unnecessary redirects in this heavily used template:

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Besides which, they work perfectly well as they stand, so WP:NOTBROKEN. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
If you're looking for consensus, I suggest you talk to the admins who have approved my previous requests of a near-identical nature: here's a partial list:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonies Chris (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Short description

{{Infobox settlement}} was recently updated to automatically populate an article's short description; is anyone willing to make the same enhancement to this template? It would help us knock off many thousands of short descriptions in one go. Let me know, UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I have implemented this suggestion. The current code is as follows:
{{main other|{{Short description|2=noreplace|{{#if:{{{type|}}}|{{delink|{{{type}}}}}|Human settlement}} in {{#if:{{{country|}}}|{{delink|{{{country}}}}}|the United Kingdom}}}}}}
This means "In article space only, insert a short description, but let a short description template in the article override the infobox's description (this is the noreplace option). The short description will be of the form '|type= [with wikilinks removed, defaults to 'Human settlement'] in |country= [with wikilinks removed]', with 'the United Kingdom' used if |country= is empty or absent." Examples: "Civil parish in England", "Human settlement in Scotland", "Electoral ward in Wales".
If you have suggestions for a better short description that could be generated from parameters in this infobox, please post them here. Keep in mind that short descriptions should be short (under 40 characters is good, with more than 80 or so being undesirable) and should "focus on distinguishing the subject from similar ones rather than precisely defining it" (per Wikipedia:Short description). – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this --- can I suggest dropping "Human"? I think most people would know that a settlement is for humans. — hike395 (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
"Human settlement" is apparently the consensus wording in the documentation for this template and for {{Infobox settlement}}. I don't know why; perhaps to differentiate from other types of settlements. I do not feel empowered to override that consensus in an automated short description. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change template calls listed, to eliminate unnecessary redirects in this heavily used template:

  • {{autolink --> {{auto link
  • {{ubl --> {{unbulleted list


I'm repeating this request as there have been no objections. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done while making the substantive change to add short descriptions, described above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request 2020-09-21

Moved from Template talk:Infobox UK place/doc/London
 – * Pppery * it has begun... 00:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

It should exist where the main Template:Infobox UK place and the other subtemplates of the latter are, please change Category:United Kingdom city infobox templates to Category:United Kingdom place infobox templates.

It is the only one in Category:United Kingdom city infobox templates - WP:OVERCAT. TerraCyprus (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Done It was not protected, but I have done the edit requested. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Population density

All, is there an option to turn off the density automation so that it doesn't show? I have looked at the options and there doesn't appear to be one on the templates, have also searched the Talk archives for previous questions on this. Reason being, with certain small civil parishes the population is combined with one or more others to get enough for a census OA area, but if you still report the area size of the single parish then this will skew the figure. I have been blanking the figure for now when I populate the infobox, but removing altogether would be best. Or, maybe disable the automation if new options are added which detect multiple parishes being added for the population figure. The template allows multiple parish entries but these are for boundary usage. Thank you for your worldly advice on this matter. Regards, The Equalizer (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

You could calculate the density manually and put it in |population_density= or you could get a blank density by setting it to a non-breaking space. May be need a flag like |show_density=no or |hide_density=yes to hide the row. Keith D (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Keith. I fear however that we'll never get the true population count for those single low-count parishes where those have been combined (not for a hundred years at least) so the density for the single parish will never be right, unless you report the size for the combined area - but then the figure is not specific to the parish and at a risk of an aware editor not appreciating this and changing it back to the correct area size. So yes, I've used the 'nbsp' trick so far, but it leaves the density field displayed, which I'd like to get rid of ideally. I look forward to waving such a flag!
The Equalizer (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
... or if |population_density= is set to "-", then do not output row 7 — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 19:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Am I missing something obvious here? If the ONS has combined a couple or three low population parishes to make a single Output Area, where are you getting the population of any one of those parishes? Are you omitting the population figure? (because one would hope that whatever is doing the density automation is clever enough not to assume that omission means zero). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Good concern there John. Short answer is that you can't get a specific figure for low populated parishes due to 2011 census restrictions. Affected settlement articles instead get away with prose such as 'population includes places x and y'. I don't mind this as I think most readers of an article want a semblance of local population, even if unaware that it goes beyond the border. However, 2 wrongs don't make a right and to also put a matching total area figure that covers multiple parishes to get a correct local area density, when the article is typically about a single one is stretching it a bit I think.
The density calculation only appears if both population and area figures are given. It isn't smart enough to realise the people numbers don't always match the area on such occasions.
The ONS have a disclaimer on their site if you want to have their word on it. ONS site
The Equalizer (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, I knew that, ref

The minimum OA size was 40 resident households and 100 resident people, but the recommended size was rather larger at 125 households. These size thresholds meant that unusually small wards and parishes were incorporated into larger OAs.

and a good thing too, since anything smaller has a very high risk of allowing information about individuals to be inferred.
So surely if an editor is "deriving" a population number for a given parish from the population of an OA that includes other parishes, that has to be a rather gross OR violation at best - and deliberate disruption at worst? People numbers should match the area on every occasion, otherwise we are lying. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there any parameter to add flag or coat of arms?

I don't see any specific parameter for this. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Only 2 image parameters |static_image_name= & |static_image_2=, you could use one of these for a flag or CoA. Or may be you could put at end using the |embedded= by using an appropriate infobox. Keith D (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Flags. Flag icons should generally not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many. - H:IB Sciencefish (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Councillors not working

Councillors= produces an unknown parameter "Councillors" warning and I can't seem to get it to work (tested on Perivale). It's not in the full syntax and seems to be part of Councillors (merged from {{infobox UK ward}}. Can anyone help? Sciencefish (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

You need to use a lowercase C as the params are case-sensitive. |councillors= -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, it wasn't clear to me Sciencefish (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Area reference parameter

Hi, would it be possible to add an |area_ref parameter (similar to the |population_ref) please? Mertbiol (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Answering my own request - I see that there is an |area_footnotes parameter, in which a reference can sit. Please ignore. Mertbiol (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place/Archive_19&oldid=1255191010"