This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Infobox UK place. 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.
Would it be possible to amalgamate the Isle of Man into the infobox somehow? It's lack of constituent country may make this tricky though. Epbr12310:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there a desire for this to happen from the Manx editting community? I wouldn't want edit warring over the use of "UK" place infobox (it was hard enough convincing some of the UK edittors themselves!).
Personally, I do see the potential benefits for this merge though... I'm sure there would be a possibility of creating a switch where if "Isle of Man" was entered it would generate "Crown dependancy" field rather than "constituent country" and "Sovereign state". Jza8411:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I understood that, formally, the Isle of Man was not part of the United Kingdom, and so the name of the infobox would not formally be correct. I imagine that might cause some difficulty to some editors. Unless there is a proposal and move to incorporate Isle of Man places into this infobox from within the Manx editing community, I would be very very wary of even proposing this, let alone initiating it. DDStretch (talk)11:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Quite. Looking breifly it appears there is no formal "Manx WikiProject", so it may be difficult to gauge support for this. However, looking too at some settlement articles (like Douglas, Isle of Man, Laxey and Marown) we have some article that would benefit from some kind of infobox regardless. Interestingly, the Douglas article is using the deprecated Template:GBthumb, which of course is intended for Great Britain (GB) articles.
If we were to make this infobox suitable for use on the Isle of Man, what changes would we need to make? I think if we understand if this is a technically possible merge it may help here. Jza8411:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
From a coding POV, if you are creating "crown dependency" features, then check the other 2 (of the 3) crown dependencies (Jersey and Guernsey - the channel islands) as well ;) Pickle18:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that - having looked at Jersey breifly, it looks like settlements either use Template:Infobox Channel Island parish or nothing. I'm thinking we may need a Template:Infobox Crown Dependency place infobox rather than merge them into this infobox, as we'd need alot of switches in this one to alter various fields like the lists of UK places, sovereign state, police, UK dial and post codes etc. Jza8419:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Good question!... I presume that article was formulated from some kind of gazetteer, or source material, which deemed the Isle of Man as a part of the UK (maybe for conveinience?). It should be changed (or the articles stipulate that it also includes the three crown dependancies).
I don't think we should get too hung up about using some UK templates on these islands; most templates are just entitled "UK" and don't actually display the United Kingdom formally or otherwise. I'm curious how much is in common on these Crown dependancies to warrent a possible merge. I.e. Do they have UK postcodes, dial codes, simillar emergency services system, OS grid references? I should imagine Census data isn't available from a UK source too which may be a problem. Jza8421:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The Isle of Man does have UK postcodes (IM) and dial codes. The Isle carries out its own census in the same years as the UK. Epbr12321:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
That to me is very interesting - and suggests a merge might be feasible. I'm struggling finding anything about the emergency services and local governance (other than parishes) of each of these islands.
I've invited them - but none have passed comment. I suppose we have the option of either being bold and make a move in which we agree that is a positive step forwards (if we work out a few details), or we hold back and "leave them to it"?
Just breifly on another note, many Scottish transclusions (e.g. Neilston) have the British car number plates code included in the infobox. Do we have plans to roll this out nationwide? I think the approach should be consistent here. Jza8413:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we should be bold and add the Isle of Man to the infobox. There either isn't many Manx users on Wikipedia or they don't have any strong opinions. Regarding the number plates in the infobox, it will only be towns with a DVLA office that will have their own code. Epbr12314:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, well we need a few things set in the coding. Namely:
When entered into the "country=" field, it doesn't generate the UK sovereign state field, and changes constituent country to "Crown Dependency" (linked).
Police could be auto generated from the country field, linking to Isle of Man Constabulary. (I've found nothing on fire and ambulance sorry).
The Isle of Man falls under the British national grid reference system (OS grid references) - and so this should still be open to the island (though doesn't seem to be used in the Channel Islands).
We may want a "douglas_distance=" field too (distance and direction can be sourced from GENUKI).
I've made some of these changes (example avaliable to view at time of this sig in my sandbox). I'm struggling with some of the more complex stuff like switching off the UK list, UK sovereign state, and European parliament fields). Jza8418:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've messed up - slightly
OK, I've broadly put the changes in place. However, I've messed up somewhere in the syntax. We've got "{{#if: ||" displaying in the top left of every transclusion. I'm not sure where the problem lies. Someone with more knowledge might be able to fix this. I believe it is to do with the Ambulance field conflicting with a switch I put in to facilitate the "crown_dependency=" field, but I could be wrong. Comparing the edit history might reveal the problem.... hopefully.
The Scotland map still hasn't been fixed with towns appearing off shore, etc. Does anyone know if this is fixable or not? --Bill Reid | Talk14:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not fixable. The problem lies with the image being used - it is distorted in such a way that makes perfect calibration and seemless pointing impossible. We need a new map. Jza8415:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've had a look at the map Pit-yacker suggests but unfortunately doesn't have the Shetland Isles in it. Is there anyone here that can produce a map from scratch that shows the entire country? --Bill Reid | Talk08:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Me. (You have to do that in an Emperor Dalek voice, otherwise it doesn't work...<grin>) The GFDL map at Image:Scotland locator map 23 August 2007.png is a combination of Image:Scotland (Location) Template (HR).png and a PD Mercator projection map from -8W to 0E, 54.5N to 61N, created by me from the public domain map engine at http://www.aquarius.geomar.de/omc/ and further edited by me. The editing was done in Microsoft Paint, the most popular and useless graphic design thingy in the world and took me hours: I had to cut up the original into little pieces and fit them into place (think jigsaw). This process is not perfect, so don't be surprised if bits are a little off, but it should be adequate for your needs. I picked Mercator cos a) it makes Scotland look bigger and b) it was easier. Bear in mind that Mercator is linear and all the longitude and latitude lines are straight lines (good), but I think vertical distances become greater the further North you travel (bad). Equidistant cylindrical would have been better, but it would have taken me a lot longer to mutilate the original by cutting it up into even weenier pieces and trying to fit them together, and I think it's beyond my capabilities to do that. Colors are per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Maps#Map_colors, and are Brown #A08070, Light brown #D0C0A0, Light yellow #FFFFD0, Medium blue #9EC7F3, Orange (sic) #F7D3AA. The whole confection has a GFDL license, so knock yourself out. You don't have to credit me, but it's nice if you do. Regards, Anameofmyveryown06:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding flippant, I'd say that Image:Uk outline map.png includes the Shetlands and is already calibrated for use in this infobox. However, I'm sure there are excellent reasons why that map is suitable for Welsh and English settlements but not Scottish ones. When Jza84 says the current map is "distorted", does he just mean that the projection is wrong? I can't imagine that someone would produce a deliberately inaccurate map, so it should be possible to work out what the current projection is, and what the correct projection would be, and then it's just a case of applying the right maths to correct the image so it's fit for purpose. I'm afraid I'm no topologist, though. — mholland(talk)
Aha, do I detect a whiff of socratic irony;-). But yes, if the existing map can be jiggled about to get it right, then that's the obvious solution. The map you refer to is just not right from a scale point of view. Our islands wikiproject find it constraining enough without 'zooming out' sort of speak.--Bill Reid | Talk16:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
From memory, that image (of Scotland) is somehow rotated, skewed, squashed or otherwise distorted in a way that even basic digital correction won't make it an accurate map. I could draw up a new map, but it would be something along the lines of what's used for Northern Ireland transclusions (it's just my style sorry). Jza8420:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
An edit shuffle has been taking place as various editors have attempted to remove/replace the Saltire flag in the Inverness infobox. This is clearly not just about Inverness and as there are several other unresolved issues concerning the use of this template in Scotland, I have begun a dialogue at Template talk:Infobox UK place/doc/examples (the talk page adjacent to the 'Scottish' example of the infobox). Your input is welcome. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk20:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Interaction between infobox and {{coor}}/{{coord}}
I've noticed that many of the Wales places with the UK infobox had the latitude/longitude omitted, which messes them up. So I put latitude/longitude in. Fine. But then it interacted with the {{coor}} template, so I commented out the {{coor}} - see here for an example. Am I doing the right thing, or am I sawing three table legs to make them match the fourth? Regards, Anameofmyveryown15:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
On the general scheme of deploying this infobox you are doing the right thing. However, at when I deployed this Infobox, I purposely left the maps off Wales if there wasnt one. Their are some (who I assume only use Wikipedia to further their political agenda), who object to the use of a UK map on articles for places in Wales -checking through histories this has led to mass reverts in the past where people have added UK maps. I felt it was better to deploy the infobox without a map than to deploy it with and have someone go around and revert every instance. Unfortunately, there isnt a {{Location map Wales}} - the end result being that large numbers of articles in Wales have no map at all. Pit-yacker15:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I approached the Welsh WikiProject some time ago about (re-)drawing some maps, but I had a "zero" amount of response, and thus I've since just continued to work on localised maps for England (which are getting there now!). Again, I'm happy to create maps for Scotland or Wales, but in the style of [:Image:Northern_Ireland_map_-_July_2007.png|this Northern Irish map], which knowing how touchy (for want of a better word) people are about places and identity, I'd rather have feedback and consensus first. Jza8416:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Pit-yacker, it would be a great pity if all your hard work was reverted en masse. Should this happen, I note that "map_type" has a nomap option and will insert if needs be. However, my question was more to do with the commenting out of the "coor" template: does that actually damage things? Regards, Anameofmyveryown17:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC).
I've had this problem with the coor template on Cheshire articles. Ythe coordinates they place get overwritten and mixed up with the ones the UK infobox places. I've just deleted the coor template stuff, as I looked upon it as a temporary fix to get coordinates listed, which the UK infobox did automatically. I've never had anyone revert them or complain about what I've done. DDStretch (talk)17:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
To answer Anameofmyveryown question, it doesn't damage anything if you replace the "coor" templates with infobox co-ordinates. The template doesn't perform any special purpose. Epbr12318:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Use of coordinates for other tools
I have started to add Template:GeoGroupTemplate to a number of category pages. I started this to identify articles needing photographs, for example Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Hertfordshire click on "map of all coordinate". This is useful to see where small places I do not know are exactly (quicker than clicking through lots of pages). I then realized it would be useful to see where there are articles on places, e.g. Category:Towns in Derbyshire. As you can see however it does not map all places. The mapping template is based on Template:Coord and only appears to works sometimes with the values in long/lat of the "Infobox UK place".
I am not totally familiar with the inner working of infoboxes and geo templates so could someone explain to me why the function does not always work and more to the point can it be fixed so the functionality can be used more effectively?Traveler10006:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Dial Code
Should this read "Dial code" or "Dialing code"? I personally always use "Dialing code". The most recent BT phone book refers to them as "UK area codes". (Obviously the template code must remain Dial code in order not to bust everything). -- SGBailey20:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
They're probably best (by which I mean most accurately and verifiably) described as "telephone area code", but would it work within the infobox? Jza8400:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
No, "telephone area code" is way too long. However "Dialing code" is not too long whilst "Dial code" sounds horribly American (and also horrible to my British ears_ and thus unsuitable for a UK article. "Area code" is bland and iunoffensive. -- SGBailey13:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've looked through the tangled madness that is this template - principally to fix a problem with City of London examples of the template, in which a national map is displayed.
The problem with the maps is caused by the City of London being tagged as a unitary_authority. It is actually sui generis (essentially, one of a kind). The problem of needing to add a city_of_london = true tag can be eliminated by treating it as a london_borough (which is the nearest similarity); this will also fix the map problem. If there are no objections, I will amend the list of London Assembly constituencies and London Borough list accordingly, and remove the special processing from this page. I suspect the original classification was done to cope with the City of London police, but if that general approach is approved, then I'll look into amending that section to cope. Kbthompson14:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable; as long as we don't state in an article that COL is a London borough, I see no problem with doing so in template code to achieve a desired result. Waggers14:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I can persuade the template to print it correctly, but it currently comes up as Unitary Authority, and it certainly ain't one of those! The police list is not a problem, and gives me a clue as to how to achieve a different heading.
I can't think why it was done this way, but I can't trace where it stopped working properly - thanks for a prompt reply. Kbthompson15:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
OK I thought I had a quick fix for this problem, but the last item complicates it again. I think it can all be done quite neatly in SELECTs, but since it's quite complex, and I'm going away. I'm not going to do it now (wouldn't be fair on who had to fix it!), I'll return to the issue in a couple of weeks (if its still there). Kbthompson09:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe this fixes all outstanding problems, including a bug I hadn't noticed before. I shall apply the changes to the City of London - please let me know if it creates any problems. Kbthompson16:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Northern Ireland
Can we please work as a team in an effort to complete roll-out of this infobox to Northern Ireland? It is part of the UK, of course, and has all the set up and coding for the transition, but some (seemly hailing from a nationalist slice of the editing community) are reverting the infobox so places in NI have an "Irish" infobox.
This is (in my humble opinion) against consensus, UK settlements guidelines, an is hard to ignore as content forking. Can I have some feedback about this if possible? Jza8422:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
IMHO your right but on the other hand its the biggest hole one could dig oneself. Is there a wikipolicy somewhere to point at? Pickle08:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
There's alot of discussion in the archives suggesting we'd have a "codified" consensus if we took it to a vote, and WP:UKCITIES was a guideline set up via consultation that also insists on this infobox for UK named places of settlement. This infobox was, at the end of the day, set up with painstaking review and re-view of syntax coding and map calibration and general functionality for use with Northern Ireland, not just Great Britain (it was originally a GB infobox until some objected that NI was omitted for no reason).
Furthermore, I don't think we should be afraid of the cultural factors here - Cornwall's population has an element of nationalism, but it uses UK infobox - it is verifiable that NI is in the UK. I see no valid reason why it shouldn't be treated as such if we're really persuing writing a proffessional encyclopedia. Jza8409:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a problem with the template when latitude and longitude are not specified in the template? For example, look at Cayton, where several fields are completed but only the 'UK Parliament', 'European Parliament' and the box footer shows. Adding something to the latitude and longitude fields causes the rest of the box to display. Keith D14:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
There does seem to be a problem with the template. If you want the co-ordinates for Cayton, they're (54.235, -0.383). Epbr12314:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I left it without to show the problem to see if the template could be fixed. Since Pickle UK tried setting map_type=nomap to see if that would cure the problem but that did not work. Keith D15:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you must have the co-ordinates to generate the full infobox. Why? I don't know, possibly the creator (who has since left Wikipedia) was trying to ensure that us lazy editors would be forced to obtain the co-ordinates and not leave them out. If you get the OS or Irish grid ref, you can input this, click on it, and the co-ordinates are generated for you. OS grid refs are searchable from getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk. Jza8421:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I came across the box while adding project templates and thought that may be there could be a fix for the template so that the filled in fields appear. Keith D22:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The Lat and Long have to be in Decimal degrees. The best way to pick up decimal lat and long is to use http://www.streetmap.co.uk/. Centre on the location and below the map at the foot of the page you will see some coordinates with a link to the right saying Click here to convert/measure coordinates . Click this and you get the coordinates in every conceivable system. Just pick out the decimal Lat and Long for the infobox. Took me ages to find this out. Lumos3 (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Is anyone else having the same problem now? When I call up a place (such as Macclesfield) the red dot that marks the place has been replaced by the name of the place, and this devalues the whole idea of the map as we had it, because the accuracy is considerably reduced. Is anyone else having similar problems? It happens on many articles of places within Cheshire I've accessed just now. DDStretch (talk)01:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought it had something to do with me (I just updated Template:Location_map_Scotland) but I've reverted the update and the problem still exists. I've had a quick look at places in Germany (e.g Cologne) and Russia (eg Cherepovets) and they're exhibiting the same problem, so it's not just {{Infobox UK place}}, it's also {{Infobox German Location}} and {{Infobox Russian city}} as well. I'm going to try a small change to the code of {{Infobox UK place}} (aaargh!). It's just a small change (I'm going to specify the dot name for Wales, rather than leaving it to default as it does at the moment). I've tried it in my sandbox and I think it works. If it doesn't, I'll self-revert ASAP. Wish me luck. Anameofmyveryown02:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep, the small change works. I'll implement it for England/Scotland/Northern Ireland/IOM immediately. It is a temporary fix: presumably something's gone wrong with Template:Location_map, so as soon as somebody works out what's gone wrong and fixes it, my changes can be reverted. Until then, however, presumably they'll have to stay in. Regards, Anameofmyveryown03:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Yep I am afraid so, there seems to be a problem at the commons at the moment many of the flag icons are showing up as text in articles, every time this happens the cache needs to be purged but I do not know how long it will be before the problem happens again. --BarryobVigeur de dessus03:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It certainly should be converted! For example - it's missing its county, dailling code, co-ordinates, OS grid ref, post town and it doesn't have its own mayor. Looks like it was added a couple of days ago. Jza8400:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Infobox UK Place & Google Earth
Anyone know why Google Earth seems to successfully scrape some places via the coordinates generated by the infobox and not others? hjuk00:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I began to look at this this pm, however someone has now fixed the problem (it existed earlier today, now it doesn't). The problem wasn't in this template, or Coord - since neither have changed. Kbthompson16:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I've just fallen in, it's the locality map pins that aren't working, I thought it was the wiki-google map. I think the problem will probably lie at a deeper level in the template calls - and I suspect it will be because they exceed some arbitrary nesting limit. Kbthompson17:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I had a look at this template the call to Coord includes the only criteria that Google-Earth specify for the geotag to work (ie |display=title); Coord is sensibly locked, but looks right. Kbthompson17:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest. How are you able to tell if the problem's fixed? On my understanding Google Earth only scrapes every three or four weeks. So we couldn't know till their next pass, I'd have thought.hjuk21:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify, I being a bear of small brain, I thought the problem was fixed, however on further investigation (see above, for an example of my scattiness), I found that there was actually a further problem. I can summarise my investigations to date, and that all working examples I found use {{coor}}, and not {{coord}} (as used in this template. I believe coor is the deprecating version, so coord should be used (but doesn't appear to work). Kbthompson23:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification. Is there anything obvious to be done? I'd have thought that it'll become increasingly useful to have the GE links working properly. I know it's probably not your thing to resolve - just wondered what a good next step might be. hjuk17:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Not really, there seems to be an ongoing argument at {{coord}}, but I can't for the life of me see if it relates to this problem. The actual mapping function seems to be handled by {{GeoTemplate}}.
As part of the conversion from template:London place to this, most lat/long specifications have been transferred to decimal format, rather than full degrees/minutes in which they originally called coor - so, there were two changes, either of which could be causing the problem. I generally learn this stuff by example - so, it might be a good idea to see how other cities fare at this task (e.g. New York - actually makes a direct call to {{Geolinks-cityscale}}, i.e. not handled in {{Infobox Settlement}} template. Many localities don't seem to use a template at all - see Mahwah (sorry, I used to live in both those places!). Kbthompson16:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
According to Template talk:Coord, the template should require coord be passed in a parameter rather than being invoked inside the template. Google needs to see the coord template in the article page. (SEWilco21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC))
OK, I think I understand now. Although the template is executed in the page (and expanded to its full syntax on loading), the 'scrape' is looking in the page for identifiable coord template code in the unexpanded page. I shall think on this, it could make a bad situation more complex than it need be. Kbthompson23:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
There are essentially four problems with the current template:
Doesn't use the recommended variable names (at WP:GEO)
Calls {{location map}} with the same latitude/longitude to fix the local maps
Use's complex code to fix the params for {{coord}}, so the user doesn't have to.
There's 6500 instances of the template in use. Any changes have to have a 'compatibility mode' so existing instances don't get upset.
Any plan for addressing the mapping problem needs to address all four. I haven't finished thinking yet, but my initial impression is one of screwedness. Kbthompson21:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Whatever sort of a bear you may describe yourself as, you're certainly a persistent one Kb. The converstaions seem to imply that the coord template is the functional one, yet, as you observed, it's the coor one that seems to do the business. With regards to a solution (and a certain amount of the preceding conversation is over my head. So excuse me if I'm missing the point), whatever template is being used for railways & tubes seems to function just fine. Couldn't the relevant parts of that be copied?hjuk22:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, no. The template tries to do all sorts of useful stuff that isn't achieved in the other templates, including choosing and splaying a nice red dot on a relevant map of the area. The other articles call coor, or indeed coord, directly (although that's less clear and should be resolved the next time they run a scrape). We need to do things with the template that seem impossible at the moment, without some bright spark asking why they have to put the coordinates in twice .... Coor is actually deprecated, we shouldn't use it. Coord is the one to go with. I been up this tree of templates, now I need to go down it to see if anyone has already invented sliced bread, in this respect. Kbthompson23:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The answer is probably. The trouble is the code to generate the correct map here is quite complex, and contains lots of unique conditions. The |map_type is specified in many calls, but doesn't seem to have an effect in defining the actual map that is generated - that seems to depend on the authority type (e.g. |london_borough). A cut out to a new map tool might well simplify this template, but compatibility, again might be a problem. I don't think that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to undertake such a task, it just may not be possible to incorporate it in this template - which would be a desirable outcome. Kbthompson10:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
New map... (s)
Trying to get back on track with the roll out following a small break... are there any users willing to calibrate this new Hertfordshire map and amalgamate it into this template? There are now (only?) 18 counties of England left to draw up - most of which are amongst the least populous of the country. Jza8412:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Is the method to produce these maps documented anywhere? (If, for example, I wanted to produce one of Bucks, which I don't think could be described honestly as "amongst the least populous of the country"). Better still, could an existing expert take it in hand? --John Maynard Friedman16:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been producing the English county maps almost (but by no means entirely) exclusively. I do intend to create maps for every county (though of course it takes time), and indeed, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire are my next targets.
I'm aware also however that should I die/fall ill/loose the internet/be blocked from editting or otherwise loose the capacity to add more or edit existing maps, then this could lead to accessibility problems - especially should a new wave of local government reform take place (as for example is proposed for parts of Cheshire). In this capacity, I do see the need to publish some documentation on how they were and can be made, though I'm not sure how to go about it using Wikipedia's webspace. Template talk:Infobox UK place/maps is the page which keeps a log on all maps produced thus far - perhaps I could put something on there?
On another note, I do have all the original hard copies of the maps in .AI format, and those that I have released are avaliable for re-editting under the terms of the public domain (I really am that kind!). I would welcome assistance from other contributors with Adobe Illustrator. Does that help at all? -- Jza84· (talk)17:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
You're really getting through these now - great work! I've implemented all of these maps. In terms of where to strike next, Devon is still missing a map, despite being the eleventh most populous county in England. Also, if you finally get to the end of the list for England, what are the chance of a map of Wales? Warofdreamstalk19:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I've probably ruined my eyesight making these last three so closely together! I had overlooked Devon, but will make this a priority for the next map (hopefully in the next 12 - 36 hours). Once England is over and done with, I would like to produce something for Wales, or even the subdivisions of Wales. I asked the Wales WikiProject for some feedback on what maps they'd like, but got no response sadly. Perhaps it's one for us to decide?... anyway, onwards to Devon! -- Jza84· (talk)23:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Map selection
How do we get the correct map to display for places in the Borough of Stockton-on-Tees which is split between two ceremonial counties. I know we have no Durham map, as yet, but the locations in North Yorkshire should display the North Yorkshire map but still display the default UK map. As an example see Yarm which should display the North Yorkshire map as it is located south of the Tees. Keith D22:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a strong programmer, and thus can't see how exactly we'd manage to program that (maybe some kind of manual over-ride switch?). If something isn't worked out, I could produce a map at a Borough level, thus a Stockton-on-Tees map is displayed and county disputes and syntax worries are avoided??? -- Jza84· (talk)23:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hold on, surely for Stockton, if the right ceremonial county is inputed in the infobox, then that would display the right county? It would just need programming slightly differently to other areas.... wouldn't it? -- Jza84· (talk)15:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
That is what I was hoping but need someone who knows the code to have a look at what needs to be done, either in the article or in the code. Already have the Ceremonial county as North Yorkshire but looks like it is relying on the region entry to do the switch. Keith D18:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've actually been thinking about this for a couple of days, since I fixed the map template for the neighbouring unitaries in the ceremonial county of North Yorkshire. It's definitely do-able; the crude and simple method would be to create a special case for places in Stockton, but I'd ideally like to come up with something which fits neatly into the current set-up. I've been pondering a few other possible changes, so I might mock something up in a few days and see if it looks like it might work. Warofdreamstalk20:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Nothing yet, but I'm now back from holiday any may be able to work something up. A switch to force a specific map would be very much my least preferred option, as it would need updating in each article whenever a relevant new map is created - something the automation process is intended to avoid. Warofdreamstalk22:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
constituency_ni_assembly
This field is making the infobox very wide on articles it is used on, see Belfast for example. Could it be wrapped so "Northern Ireland" and "Assembly" are on seperate lines? Or could it be abbreviated to "NI Assembly"? Stu’Bout ye!19:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I've abbreviated it to "NI Assembly". As the infobox already gives the "constituent country", this looks unlikely to cause any confusion. Warofdreamstalk23:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It is very basic (I can't stress that enough!), and would benefit from a bit of a tune-up and automation from some of the fantastic editors we've had here in the past. -- Jza84· (talk)23:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I just wondered if anybody else had spotted gaps in the emergency services lists in the infobox. I've found two within the last 24 hours and can't spot the problem:
Berkshire (see Wokingham) - missing police and fire.
I think these are cross over areas so you have to do them manually. Check back in the archives as there was some discussion on this IIRC. Regan12318:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Isle of Lewis and Isle of Harris are both using this infobox instead of the Scottish Island one, fine as they're not actually islands, but the map is pretty poor with a single dot representing several hundred square miles of area. I've made a different one, so can/how do I use that instead?
Would you object if I built on your map and made the pantones match some of the other local maps?.... To answer your question though, if you're happy to use this map, we can hard code it into the infobox so it appears automatically. -- Jza84· (talk)12:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to edit the colours, I've a version without Lewis marked or the .psd Photoshop original if either of those are any use? There seems to be some transparency shenanigans going on around the St Kilda group (furthest west islands) too. Andrewrpalmer14:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is something bizarre going on around St Kilda!!! Some kind of Bermuda Triangle type forcefield!... I think I've cracked it though. I'll upload it to the same point and it should display shortly. It is editable if folks want some futher changes. -- Jza84· (talk)14:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
If you add " |static_image= [[Image:EXAMPLEIMAGENAME.JPG|237px]] and |static_image_caption= <small>YOUR INTENDED TEXT</small> " into the infobox on the article you want, this will generate an image, like that on say Runcorn.
OK, after a bit of a struggle, that's now done. I've also enabled the Edinburgh location map, and it should be much easier to add the other council areas at some future time. Warofdreamstalk20:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
In implementing the use of the map in this infobox, I noticed that both St Kilda and the mainland seem a bit too close to the main body of the archipelago - if you agree, it'd be good to fix this. Also, not needing a fix but probably a small explanatory note, the map doesn't cover North Rona and Sula Sgeir. Warofdreamstalk20:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the edit summary of "blah", I would imagine it is purely disruptive. They're always invited to pass comment here though, -- Jza84· (talk)12:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
On closer inspection it could've been protest to the Edinburgh council area map. I'm going to redraw it, as it doesn't show the boundaries, and actually crops the south-west of the city off. I might even do Glasgow too!..... though I must finish the counties of England sometime soon.... -- Jza84· (talk)12:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Scotland
There remain unresolved issues in relation to the use of this template in Scotland. In order to deal with this, it may be helpful if I provide a brief overview of my own hopes, fears and sentiments.
This template provides a fairly unified look across the UK.
Its use in Scotland was created via the deletion of Template:Infobox Scotland place. This occurred despite the (more-or less) unanimous opposition of Scottish Wikipedians.
The template , as it operates in Scotland has a number of unsatisfactory features (that I will list below shortly).
My currnet view is that, (somewhat in tandem with the present political arrangements) that we should accept the existing consensus on use of the UK infobox, but seek to modify its continuing use in Scotland, assuming a reasonable consensus can be reached here.
I have concerns that either my Scottish colleagues will become so incensed by the debate that they generally lose the rag, plot and argument, or that my English colleagues will turn up in overwhelming numbers and attempt to steamroller events into line (or both).
A presenting issue is the use of a Saltire on the Inverness infobox. It is claimed that this violates Wikipedia policy and consensus reached earlier at Talk:UKinfobox place. It might be helpful if the former could be spelled out. As the above suggests, it is not my view that a consensus reached essentially by and for English use, should apply in Scotland unless there is a very good reason why it should do so. I'd like to canvass views on this subject, rather than conduct a pointless edit war over Inverness. My current view is that the Saltire could and should appear as the default. This issue was not in the least controversial as far as I know until the UK template was created.
Fields
Secondly, the existing infobox has various deficiencies from a Scotland perspective that have been mentioned before. What is the point of an 'Ambulance' field when the whole country is served by one service? Likewise European Parliament. To me, the font for the 'other languages' (little used in England?) looks too large. There may well be other small issues - I suspect few Scots care about Vehicle Codes for example. The 'Sovreign State' issue is bound to irritate the substantial minority who oppose the notion and don't care to be reminded of it every time they edit a village or small town. There's the historic county issue too. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk20:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Scotland is a small country but its geography is bigger than you might think. For example, the Western Isles cover a distance roughly equal to London-Sheffield. The nearest railway station to Unst is (nearly) Bergen. Even excluding the outliers like St Kilda, North Rona and indeed Rockall, Scotland's shape is not very convenient for map makers. To identify a location with any degree of accuracy more than one map would be extremely helpful. This was an advantage of the old Scottish infobox - it allowed editors to choose their own. I realise this sort of 'anarchy' may not be popular here, but the current situation is not ideal either. In the past the map has also produced places in the wrong location. Burghead looks better, but still not right I think, for example. I don't have a solution to this, I'm just raising it as part of the story. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk20:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I suggest you move this to the main talk page where you're likely to get a better response. These are some interesting points and I would like to reply a little later on. Regan12320:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
As noted in my original posting at Talk:Inverness I have deliberately tried to find a relatively neutral place to conduct the discussion. I will of course post an announcement on the page you refer to asap. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk20:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
For someone who is lucky enough (!) to have dual Scottish-English heritage (though it shouldn't really matter what nationality, creed, colour, faith, football team you support etc), and a user involved in UK, Scottish and English geography, and the original development of the infobox, I think you raise some valid points (though others not-so valid). What I offer, as you've requested, is some cool opinion.
I agree with you that the current map is very weak. We need a better one, or a better system. I'm not sure if there are any advanced cartographers about who could make something suitable and pallettable; there are going to be problems here with the cultural psyke. I would certainly be interested in making maps for Scotland at a council area level, but I know that the Scots (broadly) like all things Scottish to be united (and have the word Scottish infront of things!), so I'm not sure how popular that would be (though it would certainly be helpful for the cities, especially Glasgow). It's certainly one for discussion.
I disagree 110% about the inclusion of the Saltire for Scotland only. It's un-needed, unhelpful, and as shown already there is an overwhelming body of users who take this stance. Not only is it in breach of the consensus formed during roll-out, but against WP:MOSFLAG. The inclusion of a flag (Union or otherwise) would be a never-ending edit-warring disaster, brimming with un-needed politicisation. Not to mention, Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride...
On some of the fields I agree with you. Vehicle codes should certiainly go if you ask me (it has nothing to do with geographic demarcation) it just tells you at what centre a vehicle was registered at! I also agree that the additional languages should be reduced in text size (this is the English language version of Wikipedia); they are helpful bites of info, but they are a little too dominant. They are used alot for Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man, the Anglo-Welsh border and Cornwall however, not just Scotland by any means. Historic counties have no basis in law, do not feature in any contemporary official material, had descepencies (which date does one use? - boundaries changed, and had enclaves and exclaves). It would also breach the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) (we do not take the minority veiw that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries). I think they are useful to include in prose, but certainly not infoboxes and so its another 110% disagreement! Finally, the Sovereign state is verifiable, and there's no reason why a particular hamlet shouldn't have it, when a city does - they are both of equal worth. I hope this reply helps in gauging some support for facilitating some of these issues. -- Jza84· (talk)21:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
A quick response as it is time for my bed. The flags issue had been contentious for a lot of time. There are those who argued for the Union Flag on all infoboxes, a combined Union/Constituent flag - where do you go with Northern Ireland and the recent heavy edit wars. Cornwall/Yorkshire and so on also presented problems. The discussion happened here. Whilst I know it wasn't much of an issue in Scotland with one unified infobox, we probably need one policy. I remain open to persuasion though...
Replying to Ben MacDui: I have thought long and hard about this (too much time sat on the M25 I think). If we go back to having flags, then what do we have? The Union Flag, Constituent Country (and then NI flag issue hits us hard), Local Flag (eg. Cornwall, Orkney). If there is one 'flexibility' introduced then we could result in lots of 'flexibility' that causes edit wars. Whatever we all agree on, should be implemented in the infobox code. Regan123 (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I will leave the map issue to others. I implemented the wording for the languages quickly and never got round to sorting it out. The other fields were added at request at that stage and actually came about from the old Scotland box I believe. I would prefer the ambulance/European parliament stay in only that if someone drops straight into the article from anywhere else on WP, they get the whole information. As for the rest of them, I'm fairly relaxed. Regan12300:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Does the same apply to the administration of police or fire services? I think it's an incredibly useful way of quickly summarising information which could conceivably be of interest to a passing reader. --Breadandcheese01:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Replying to BenMacDui, there is a |nopfa=yes switch that turns off Police, Fire, Ambulance that was implemented for suburbs, where a parent article held the info. Would this be acceptable? Regan123 (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
There was no specifically English consensus, the consensus was for the entire United Kingdom and for the UK-wide infobox. The arguments made there are entirely relevant here. This is all incredibly irrelevant and useless twaddle, in my opinion. You're definitely not getting any consensus for a policy change from me. --Breadandcheese01:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Nice to make your acquaintance. You are correct that the consensus was for the entire UK, but it I am not aware of there being any Scottish wikipedians who, at the time, supported the deletion of the Scottish infobox, and from memory those for and against were about 50/50. That's not what I'd call 'consensus'. Incidentally I am sure you mean that I am "definitely not getting any agreement for a policy change from me". Consensus is something that is reached by groups of open-minded individuals seeking to work togther for a common end, not (as surely you must know) something that can be provided by the individuals themselves. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk14:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe myself entitled to commentary on the state of Wikipedia, and I do consider it particularly constructive to highlight abuses. I didn't address that to anyone in particular, and it was in the context of a discussion on a userpage between myself and another editor only. --Breadandcheese01:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
In response to Ben MacDui.... I identify as (part) Scottish, and am a member of the WikiProject Scotland, but supported the deletion of the Scotland place infobox. It was a much weaker infobox than the city-class UK one. I'm concerned however (and do correct me if I'm wrong) that there's an underlying assertion that so-called "Scottish articles" somehow belong to "Scottish Wikipedians" and they have a right to choosing visual dialogues in "their territory"; please be mindful that this is just not the case - all articles are open to all peoples, and are certainly not divided according to ones personal cultural identity.
I do believe you make some sound points, particularly on how to strengthen this infobox and make the demarcation of Scotland much more reader-friendly. However, if we facilitated all these suggested changes, particularly flags and removing the UK, I think you would be essencially re-inventing the Infobox Scotland place, and some articles (only in Scotland - where UK is not mentioned in leads per WP:UKCITIES, and editors keep removing Template:UK Cities for Template:Scottish cities) would then have no mention of the UK at all! Even clicking on Scotland (unlike ENG/WLS/NI) we find that the UK is peripheral to Europe. I don't think this is helpful, or inline with other publications and thus maintain a strong veiw against this change.
Going forwards, I'm happy to help produce some local maps in consultation with WP:SCOTLAND, and don't see the reduction of additional languages text being contentious, beyond that I'm not sure you could secure a consensus to change the existing set up... well, maybe removing vehicle codes - but that's my opinion. -- Jza84· (talk)14:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just made some edits which affect the template for some places in Scotland, but I wasn't aware of this discussion as it's hidden away. Could we please move it to Template talk:Infobox UK place, where there's a chance that people who are concerned with the appearance of this infobox in a large number of articles will see it? Actually, I'm just going to be bold and move it. Warofdreamstalk21:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts: technically, there would be no difficulties in implementing any of these suggestions. There seems to be a consensus to reduce the size of the text for place names in other languages. I'm all in favour of this, although I could countenance varying it according to some formula, such as the local usage of those names. Perhaps that would be rather confusing and overly complicated. The vehicle codes are also looking unpopular, and seem to me a rather ill-fitting part of the infobox.
On the map suggestion, the map just implemented for the Outer Hebrides might solve the problem. If editors would like two maps in the infobox, that too would be entirely possible. But I am keen that those maps are automatically selected to provide something appropriate for the place, rather than entered manually each time. Warofdreamstalk21:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Could we remove the wikilink with the place names in other languages aswell it just looks plain silly to link the whole text to an article about the language only the language name needs to be linked --BarryobVigeur de dessus23:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
If someone does do a new Scotland map then perhaps Orkney and Shetland could be done as two separate maps and the the main Scotland map could be a lot bigger. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree. The current map produces about an inch of unused whitespace in the UK infobox. A Scottish mainland map would suffice for most purposes, and free up space for images and text. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
So, can we attempt to solve this issue and either (a) agree with consensus per use of the UK places infobox or (b) disagree and suggest concrete and reasoned proposals for change. Sooner the better. --Breadandcheese (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that we do have two concrete proposals for change with broad agreement: reduce the size of the place name in other languages, and remove the vehicle codes entirely. Are there any objections to these two measures? If not, I will implement them. Warofdreamstalk01:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Great, vehicle codes have gone, and place names in other languages are now in a standard size font, rather than at 1.25x standard size. Warofdreamstalk01:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Simple map?
Is there a template that will enable me to show the location of a place in, say, Gloucestershire, with a map of the country (as per this template) but without any administrative details (post code, district, etc etc)? In other words, just the county map with the location highlighted. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk21:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want to show the location of something which isn't a settlement - perhaps the location of an event or monument - you can use {{Location map|Gloucestershire}} (or replace Gloucestershire with the name of the appropriate county. But, as Jza84 says, this shouldn't be used for settlements. Warofdreamstalk09:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks indeed for the speedy responses. {{Location map|Gloucestershire}}—or more precisely {{Location map many|Gloucestershire}}—was just what I needed, for giving the location of an airfield. These are excellent resources. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk12:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Area option
If it possible to have the area be stated X km2 (Y sq mi), so that it is consistent with the rest of the article? UK articles have the option of imperial first or metric first, so if it can't be done at the moment, could it be added? Rossenglish (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone explain why the addition of Infobox UK place to a page creates a mass of white space that is so large none of the article text appears on screen without scrolling down? See Staithes for an example. If this is inevitable, this infobox should be scrapped. Emeraude (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't the info box, it was the three right justified images before any of the text. So the text couldn't start until the first image had been placed. Try it now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
That was quick! I've noticed this white space problem on many pages and it can usually be solved by putting all the pictures above the text, but not, it seems, with this infobox. Thanks. Emeraude (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
That 'discussion' was merely a pointer to one that was held here in June, and which can be found in Archive 4 above. To summarise, it was pointed out that there are issues with equating 'parish' with 'place' - a civil parish is a local authority area, like a smaller version of a county or a district/borough. In particular, many parishes cover multiple settlements. Mauls (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I've made some major changes to the workings of the template. The appearance should only change very slightly, and no changes should be needed to any articles. In summary:
Advantages:
The template now has only one sub-template, {{Infobox UK place/local}}, which combines the features of all the previous sub-templates. The new sub-template allows for a more straightforward hierarchical approach to find information, and this should make it easier to change, as required in future.
The template is now lighter on Wikipedia's resources (and will now contribute little to reaching template limits, which has been a problem in the past), in part due to the new sub-template, and in part due to a general move to change #ifeqs and #ifs to #switches.
I've added a few more notes to differentiate the sections of the main template; further notes may be useful.
The template now automatically finds the correct map for places in Stockton-on-Tees, and the correct ambulance service for places in the Glossop area (previously, only Glossop itself was correct here).
Expected changes in appearance:
The row immediately below the official name, which was blank for places with no alternative names, will no longer appear in such cases.
Horizontal lines dividing the template will appear in more logical places - they will no longer appear between two images, or between Scottish constituencies and other constituencies.
In order to fix an issue with horizontal lines, constituencies now appear in order from largest to smaller.
Links to lists of places names in Northern Ireland will omit "County" for brevity, with the exception of County Londonderry, where it is useful for clarity.
For the moment, Edinburgh will show a local map, rather than a Scottish or UK map. (see below)
The new set-up is slightly fussier about the correct information being added; templates in some articles which are missing major details (such as regions or countries) will be missing some further outputs, but all should continue to appear correctly.
There seems to be a problem with the display of Region on the changed template. For examle on Filey the region is now not been displayed. Keith D (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that; it's very useful to get feedback like this. It was only affecting the Yorkshire and Humber region and was caused by a minor spelling error in the sub-template. I've now fixed it. Warofdreamstalk12:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, the recent changes to the template seem to have caused extra space(s) to appear below the main header of the article. This could be to do with other language names, at it happens on Truro and Redruth but not Salisbury. Many thanks --Joowwww (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well spotted - I'd noticed this problem on a couple of articles earlier today but hadn't had a chance to investigate the link. Thanks to your information, I've been able to quickly fix the issue. Warofdreamstalk18:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This one was a problem with the article - instead of having a standard constituency entered, it only had an entry for a second constituency, which is deliberately set up not to generate a second "UK Parliament" label. I've fixed the field name in the article. Warofdreamstalk10:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again, I had not spotted the problem in the article, though I thought it strange that other articles did not show the same problem. Keith D (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This change is really great stuff! I'm very impressed!... just wondered if the enlargement of the maps (from 240px wide to 300px) was intentional? It seems to knock the static images out of line with the maps. -- Jza84 · (talk)23:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Another problem that I assume is related to these changes. I'm no template expert, but I've just fixed a problem with the template on Kingskerswell by adding
"|shire_county= Devon". Without this it gave lots of errors - see the previous version[3]. —SMALLJIM18:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is a case of the article missing some vital information. I've been checking Google periodically to catch any instances as it finds them - currently, I've only had to fix five or six. Warofdreamstalk10:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Edinburgh is displaying a local council area map again. As a capital city, I think this should be pointing within a Scotland or UK wide map. Can this be fixed? -- Jza84 · (talk)00:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added | map_type= UK to force Edinburgh to display a UK-wide map; this can be applied manually to any article which should have a more general map. Warofdreamstalk03:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Automatic conversion for population density & distances
I've just added a few new parameters to allow automatic conversions to & from population per km² and per sq mi and to & from km & mi. I'm half way through adjusting the doc page. Is there anything I'm overlooking or doing the wrong way round? Jɪmp02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I got a new version. It's working fine on the pages I've tested. I'm putting it in. If there's any strife, please leave me a note and if I don't respond revert me. Jɪmp16:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
What do we mean by dialling code? Debate.
There's an ambiguity here: A dialling codes can mean a regional area code or STD, such as 0161 or 020 but it can also mean local "exchange" code, such as (0161) 275 or (020) 8811 with the second part being the local code specific to that small area.
In articles covering small UK places, especially ones that have a dedicated "exchange" code like this that applies to the same area as the article covers, should we be putting these codes in the infobox instead of or as well as the far more general regional STD?
I am in favour of this, as for certain articles it would provide a more accurate description of the code as well as an additional piece of information that is not otherwise included. Of course a consistent way of differentiating the two parts of the code (like bracketing) would have to be agreed so as to avoid confusion, but as an exact definition of "dialling code" doesn't appear in this template anyway, it would be useful to iron this matter out.
I've seen this being discussed - by which I mean edit-warred over - in the Withington article. My own view is that local exchange codes is too much detail, and clutter the infobox. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
With the expansion of VoIP, number portability and cable operators the prefixes are no longer restricted to the small areas they were once intended for. MRSC • Talk10:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with MRSC. With number portability, I can port a previously geographically linked number to VOIP, but be anywhere in the country (or world for that matter). Also, any geographically linked codes tend to be BT-only. paypwip (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It was originally appearing in the infobox; I transferred it to data - rather than exception coding - but everything has changed since then, so I'd look at recent changes. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Missing Dialing Code or PostTown or PostCode
I've added two hidden templates into the main template which will help find articles where the Dialing Code, PostTown or PostCode is not included.
The recent changes we've had to the template seem to have removed the word "the" from the mapping system. E.g. Tarbert, Outer Hebrides is now "shown within the Outer Hebrides" and Walsall is "shown within the West Midlands". Any chance of a fix? --Jza84 | Talk 01:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed quite a few articles about villages have had the map_type field removed. It doesn't seem to have much effect on what is shown, and so I'm asking whether it is now superfluous or not? Additionally, some have had the website field removed, even though the parish or town council's website was included there. What is the view about having the websites included in the infobox? My feeling is that they are better there than in an External Linkls section (which may well have been the reason why they were removed.) DDStretch (talk)11:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that the "|map_type=" field, which you are right to identify as redundant, hails from the time prior to automation of maps. It can be safely removed (I do it myself where I see it).
The latter question I'm not as sure about. I thought the "|wesbite=" field was there purely for parish or local government sites only (not local history or commercial spaces). But I suppose double checking this between us will do no harm. --Jza84 | Talk 11:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the information about the map_type field. I'll remove them myself from now on. The article that prompted my question about websites in the infobox was Knutsford, where the website field conatined the town council website. Since it was also included as an EL, the website field was removed. I think this was the wrong way round, and so I've reinstated it, and removed the EL instead. DDStretch (talk)11:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that the Northamptonshire map seems to be a bit out of callibration. The map on Barby, Northamptonshire shows the village to be on top of the M45 motorway when it is in fact about a mile south of it.
Secondly. I've thought that it might be an improvement to the maps if a scale was added to them to give some idea of the size of the counties, and distances. As they currently stand it's impossible to get any sense of scale For example the Rutland map gives no indication that the county is significantly smaller than say North Yorkshire. Any suggestions. G-Man?20:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Could I add a third problem on the maps - that is the text under the map giving details of what is being shown. Having the text in small and in italics make in unreadable in some circumstances. Either it should be small and normal text font or in italics and normal font size. Keith D (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I will try to get round to the Barby problem (I was aware of it, but it will take some time to fix). I don't think a scale bar is really necessary in that there is a mini-map included. Certainly national maps don't have them either.
As for the italics/small issue, if we have to change this, I'd rather see the italics go than the small formatting. Just curious though as to what the circumstances are when they clash? --Jza84 | Talk 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I've slightly altered the calibration of the Northamptonshire map and it now shows the dot for Barby in the correct place, but the line of the motorway is a little further south than reality, so it still shows up on the north side of the road at present. Warofdreamstalk17:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If you look on the Market Weighton article for example, there is a bit too much of a gap between the main image and the second image (in this case, the church and the coat of arms). Can somebody fix the template so there isn't such a big gap? Thanks. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that no towns in the UK seem to have an area filled in? Apparently there is an option in the template for this, so why is it not used? I just feel that it would keep it slightly more in line with the articles from other places, which always seem to have the areas of the towns filled in. I think this information would be far more useful than knowing what police service the town uses, or what post town it's part of, which looks ugly in capital letters, by the way.
I come to wikipedia to get that kind of information and I don't know where else I'd find it. It's easy enough for me to find it for a French city, for example, so why not a British city?
It seems that if you don't have EITHER a parish OR a london_distance, then no horizontal line appears below the OS grid ref.
Both these fields are optional, so I think the line should either always appear, or never appear.
For an e.g. try Herne Bay. No line in current ver (1 May 2008), but if you add either of those options, the line appears.
It's especially confusing, because every use of the template seems to put the fields in a different order, as well as use a different combination of them (even just looking on the 'featured articles' in WP:UKGEO.
I understand that the dividing line is there for ease of reading. Once facts and figures are found and inserted into infoboxes, they generate additional bars. Is this causing trouble for you? Can you explain your last point a little more? --Jza84 | Talk 23:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been bold and addressed the issue with the bar you are talking about by reversing the order in which divisions are listed. As everywhere using this box will have a country (or dependency) listed, the bar will now always appear. The fields will always appear in the same order; which ones appear will depend on what is relevant to the place, and what data has been entered into the infobox. Warofdreamstalk23:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It's by no means an irreversible change, but ensuring that the line always appears will be a difficult problem with them in their old order. Warofdreamstalk23:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't think the line was such a problem to warrent a re-order. I guess we can see what others think. Of course the same material is shown, I just feel, editorially, it looked better (ordered more like a familliar postal address) --Jza84 | Talk 23:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
My criticism was based on my belief that a template should help to 'standardize' in as much as that is possible. If the pages appear different simply because they do/do not have some of the optional informaion, that can detract from what I believe to be the purpose of using a standard template - ie to lend conformity to similar articles. This is a complex area, and I do see the other viewpoint - of the template making the decision as to how many separators are present. However, I would lean toward standardisation, admittedly perhaps at the cost of some degree of clarity on certain pages. Also, upon studying the template further, I noted that the 'full syntax' does suggest that all UK pages should have a 'distance to London'. I didn't really want one on the page I'm working on, but that's a personal pref, and in the interests of conformity - based on my own arguments - I'm happy to add one, and am doing so. I know that aany arguments I may have about all UK places having to show the 'distance from London' - well, this is not the right place. All, thank you for your extrodinarily prompt responses in this matter. Chzz (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Remember, Wikipedia is work in progress; there are many articles that don't use full features of the template for a number of reasons:
Some articles lack "additional" fields simply because there aren't enough editors around who are interested in the page. Things like the "static image", "area" and "london distance" require time on the part of the contributor, therefore haven't yet had these added by anybody.
Other fields are missing because they might not be relevant to the page. For example, Milnrow is an unparished area, therefore doesn't need the "civil parish" field, whilst also, the town lies within a metropolitan county, and doesn't need the "shire district" field too.
Does that help your query? Also, how do you feel about the reversal of the territories? - (i.e. UK, England, Lancashire, Burnley.... instead of Burnley, Lancashire, England, UK?) --Jza84 | Talk 10:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I personally prefer it to be the other way up with the smallest area first. I have always though that the {{Infobox Settlement}} template to be the wrong way round and should be switched to the way this template was. Keith D (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it helps, thanks. I think the line should remain, as it now is, because all UK settlements should have distance to London, as per some prior agreement (even though I personally don't like it). If articles don't yet have it, they should, and the format with the line is more consistent and fits better with the articles that do have dist to Lon. Articles without wouldn't be featured articles anyway.
Re. order of territories - personally no strong preference; weak pref for leaving it the way it is because it's more like 'breadcrumbs' on a webpage. Thanks again, Chzz (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
(On the ordering) I don't have any strong preference between either of the two sensible orderings (i.e., from higher level unit to lower level unit, or from lower level unit to higher level unit) except that it should be one of them. I have a much greater preference to make the direction of ordering the same in all similar infoboxes, however (UK place, UK settlement, England and Wales civil parish, etc). DDStretch (talk)12:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. My preference is that we go from lower to upper divisions i.e status quo. The reason being this is a more famillar style in writing and presentation - like and address would be presented. I won't lose any sleep over it though. --Jza84 | Talk 12:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As the change wasn't popular, I've no objections to you reverting it, but note that the issue with the extraneous line could have been easily fixed, were this desirable. Warofdreamstalk02:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Suggestions for improvement
A couple of useful items that are on the Infobox Settlement template. It would be handy if they were included on this one.
Settlement type For example, Laughton, East Sussex has population and area statistics, but is this for the village of Laughton or the Parish of Laughton?
Twin towns A lot of town articles list the twins under a twinning section with no further details eg. Polegate. This would be better included in the infobox.
I write mostly about villages in Cheshire. As far as I can see, the census data is dealt out in most of their cases at the civil parish level. That's what I include and make that clear when I report it in the text. For towns, for Cheshire, the only problematic cases occur for unparished areas, which are mostly towns or Chester (the central city part). As for twinning, I think it is best done in the article, as the infobox stands at the moment. DDStretch (talk)23:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, expanding within the article is the way to do it with the current template. However, the infobox is there to provide a summary, without the need to read further. MortimerCat (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, partly, with the principal of this suggestion, but I'm concerned about it also. There was a huge debate (here) about the use of flags in the infobox. Not only are there inconsistencies with how "twinning" is arranged throughout the UK (rendering the infomation a little too simplistically), but I think the inclusion of non-domestic flags would face some fierce opposition. I'm with DDStretch on this that I think prose can handle this better than the infobox. --Jza84 | Talk 00:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(E/C) I agree, but one has to choose what to omit and what to summarize, because a summary that contained every point would hardly be one. I guess people will just disagree over what is good to include and what can be omitted. Is there any information available about how many articles using this infobox would also be able to make use of any twinning field, or what the important ones would be? That would help, I think. DDStretch (talk)00:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Only towns have mayors - communities (or parishes in England I believe) have chairmans. In the German template there is a second field that allows to select the title, which defaults to mayor if not set. Agathoclea (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
My concern was that this field would require frequent updating (as kindly pointed out), and doesn't add a great deal of value to an article about a place. A name seems a little unclear without prose which is something the other fields handle well. Any objection to a revert, at least for now? --Jza84 | Talk 22:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Since I have used it in Neyland I would prefer it to stay. I don't think it would cause too much trouble as all the changes will be in May every year and well publicized. Agathoclea (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to disagree; I think its taking the infobox out of the realms of geographic demarcation, into politics and personalities which is something I'd hoped we'd avoid in this template altogether. If the mayorality is for just a year, and that person doesn't have an article themselves (so it's just a name), I don't think it brings any lasting enhancement to the article. --Jza84 | Talk 13:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with it being removed. I don't think it adds anything, and changes the kind of information the infobox contains. Additionally, from fields containing names in other infoboxes, it could become a vandal-magnet which, because it involves a named individual who will be living, could need far more patrolling and vigilance. DDStretch (talk)13:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)Not sure I like it, as it suits only some of the articles likely to have this infobox used in "their articles". It also confuses the settlement with the administrative body of the area which could get messy. Already we have a sometimes botched job which tries to deal with the differences between settlements and civil parishes (not to mention the administrative body of the civil parish), and adding the mayor will make it even more complicated, I think. It is probably best handled just in the text of the article, I think. However, if something like this is wanted, perhaps it is time to reassess the whole basis of an infobox at this level and think more along a more modular structure, where sections can be swapped in or out, depending on what is needed. DDStretch (talk)22:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It may be more like an inside-out one compared with the example you gave: I see it as a basic infobox into which is slotted various modules depending on what characteristics the settlement has. It is a bit like having optional fields, but expanded so that one has bundles of optional fields, all bound together by declaring the bundles within the basic infobox, whereupon they become "transcluded" as required. It probably requires a more sophisticated form of basic infobox, however. DDStretch (talk)23:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I've tidied the implementation, but I agree with DDStretch that I'd rather the infobox stuck to geographic data. On a slightly related point, I've seen a request elsewhere for us to add a ward(s) field. I don't see any problem with that, but is there any reason why it wasn't originally included? Warofdreamstalk14:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
--Not that I'm aware of. I believe User:MRSC was the original architect of the infobox who may be able to comment. Looks like a feasible field (although we might want consider how it would work for major towns, ie. would we list them all? - surely not?) --Jza84 | Talk 15:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not have much time this afternoon, but quicky checked a few other countries. And they all seem to have it in their infoboxes. Agathoclea (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
RE: Wards. I think one could add these, but one would have to be clear which wards one was adding (as well as distinguishing the ancient hundred-like divisions of lands used in the North East from these as well for those articles in the North East). There are potentially three different levels of wards: county, district, and parish (these last not being so prevalent, as it happens). Because of our slightly crazy way of doing things in England and Wales, the boundaries of none of these need correspond with each other. I imagine that parish wards might be relegated to the civil parish infobox (which I want to make some changes to anyway, but more of that later), which would leave the county and district wards (subsumed as one type in unitary authority areas). I think it would need careful wording to make sure everyone was interpreting them to be wards at the same level. If it can be done, I see no reason why they shouldn't be included. DDStretch (talk)15:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
That is an excellent point. I agree that we should disregard parish wards for this infobox, and would definitely want to use county and unitary authority wards. We may also wish to include district wards separately. Perhaps the field types should be unitary_ward, county_ward and district_ward? Warofdreamstalk19:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It's probably my experience of living in an urban sprawl, but to me, the electoral wards of the United Kingdom (which is what I presume we're talking about) are quite small areas. In what situations would the field be "activated"? My worry is that we use this on say, Glasgow, and end up listing 30 wards in the infobox. Would this field be used for small localities within larger wards? --Jza84 | Talk 19:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I foresee the field being used in a similar manner to the constituency fields: for small localities within larger wards, and for medium-sized localities containing one or two wards. Clearly listing more than a handful of wards would be inappropriate. However, there may be an argument for creating a list of wards in Glasgow (possibly as a section of an article such as politics of Glasgow - in fact, I see it already has one), and linking to that in such cases. Warofdreamstalk21:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Sheffield would not have a long list of all 28 wards in the infobox. This is probably better dealt with in the Sheffield City Council article. Hillsborough (ward) is a ward electing 3 members to the Sheffield City Council, and it'd seem to be superfluous to add the ward= parameter to the infobox, but Hillsborough, South Yorkshire and Malin Bridge are both (for want of a better word) neighbourhoods, within the Hillsborough Council electoral ward, so these would have the ward= parameter set to "Hillsborough", and linking to Hillsborough (ward). I hope that this makes sense.
The problem occurs when we talk about somewhere such as Abbeydale, Lower Don Valley or West End, Sheffield, which cover multiple wards. I'd maybe suggest an arbitrary figure (say 5) where if the district covers more than this number of wards, the ward= parameter is left blank (to prevent lists of 20 wards in the infobox). L.J.Skinnerwot|I did13:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Coordinates
I am currently struggling with converting coordinates to the infobox format. I have 51°42′44″N longitude=004°57′23″W and can't find a way to decimalize it without ending up in the water. Agathoclea (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you cite the example you're working on? I think I can crack this, but depends on the circumstances. :) --Jza84 | Talk 22:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
If you can enter the coordinates into streetmap (www.streetmap.co.uk) , you can then use an option which converts them to the decimal form. I imagine multimap (www.multimap.co.uk) would be the same. Entering it might need a bit of work, though. DDStretch (talk)22:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to update the infobox template to allow 51|42|44|N|4|57|23|W format as the coord template does? Bazj (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Maps
Can anyone put their finger on what has happened to the maps displayed by this template. They appear to be smaller than before and placed left rather than central to the infobox, leaving a gap to the right. I have looked a a few places in different counties so it is not just a single county map that is the problem. Keith D (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Everything appears normal in my browser. Can you point us in the right direction in terms of example articles? Might be someone fooling around with the main location map template. --Jza84 | Talk 18:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I had noticed something appeared to have happened a while back, especially the positioning matter. However, it happened as I changed the computer I used to access the Internet with, and having now a widescreen kind of set up, I had assumed it was my change in monitor that made things look as if they were formatted differently. My additional use of "greasemonkey" and "stylish" as Firefox addons with a few tweaks relevant to wikipedia meant I decided any apparent changes were probably down to my own meddling locally on my computer. DDStretch (talk)19:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Some padding seems to have been put in around the map and caption field on April 19, but I'm not sure why, or even if I'm interpreting it correctly on just the quick glance I've given it. DDStretch (talk)19:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I've tried disabling "stylish" and "greasemonkey" in Firefox v3 and got no change to the left-justified image on the Peacehaven article. If I reduce the fonts, the image remains left-justified for me. DDStretch (talk)20:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The map of Edinburgh has gone local again - I can't work out or remember how to fix this to a national map. Anybody help? Whatever the change a hidden message in the relevant field on that article might help stop this recurring. --Jza84 | Talk 02:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It's the exact same thing as before; someone had changed the infobox from map_type=UK (which forces the display of a map of the UK) to map_type=Scotland (which doesn't do anything). I've fixed it. Warofdreamstalk02:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it is a bit more complicated than that. For some time a Scotland map was shown (see this edit on 26 June 2008 at 10:08.) The next edit changed a different field from the map_type field, and the map changed to the local map (see this edit on 26 June, 2008 at 11:21), with diffs here. In both cases, the map_type field was set equal to Scotland (see map_type field, just after OS field here in the article which showed the map of Scotland just before it changed to the local area map.) So, it seems to me as if there is an interaction between the shown map and the unitary_scotland field. The question is, which map should be shown: the one of the entire UK, or juswt the Scotland one, and, if it is the latter, how can that be done? I have no opinion on this last matter. DDStretch (talk)13:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
map_type=Scotland doesn't do anything; unless map_type is set to UK, the map type is selected by checking the unitary_scotland field, so when the user changed that to something unexpected, random results were generated, with the Scotland map being defaulted to but other information missing. If there is a really strong desire to show the Scotland map, I can add some slightly messy code to implement this quickly, but I'm reluctant to bulk out the template with extra conditions which should only be used in a very small number of articles and will probably be misused rather more. Warofdreamstalk17:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
For most templates you can add an image immediately beneath them by adding the link directlty after the template code, i.e.
}}[[Image:Placeholder.jpg]]
However, this doesn't work for this template, and leads to articles looking like this when editors try it. Can someone fix this? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ5708:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
File:ScreenshotLavenham.jpgI've been told that it works fine in Firefox, but in Internet Explorer it shunts the start of the text down to level with the bottom of the infobox (as in the picture to the right), whilst I would expect it to work like this article, where the picture is located beneath the infobox, but the text is not affected. пﮟოьεԻ5722:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Can't help with the format problem directly, but have come up with a possible alternative "solution" which places the image into the infobox. Look at the article now and see if that would be acceptable. DDStretch (talk)18:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Errr, you managed to revert the article to a year-old version which was half the size! Sadly it doesn't really solve the problem though as you don't always want the image in the infobox - it may be a second image that you want to put below it. пﮟოьεԻ5720:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I merely followed the link you provided and made my edits to that. It might have been more useful to not link to an out of date version, or else clearly flagged it up as being out of date when you gave the link. Anyway, Jza84 has given some good advice about this practice of images just below the infobox. DDStretch (talk)22:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It clearly says when you open the link that it's an old revision, and then when you edit it, you get a warning bar saying "You are editing an old revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed." Plus, I wouldn't leave an article looking like that just to make a point that the infobox isn't working. пﮟოьεԻ5707:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been doing some experimenting to see if I can pin down the problem. It appears to be related to the way the template outputs the co-ordinates in the title area of the article. If you remove the co-ordinates from the template call then it displays correctly in IE, obviously without the map. May be this will give a clue to those who know about the template as to what to look at. Keith D (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Cheers for that. I had a go myself and solved it by just moving the co-ordinate coding to a different bit of the template code. Works fine now. пﮟოьεԻ5721:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe we should be putting images beneath the infobox anyway. The infobox has the capability of having two static images, which is more than adequate. Any others can be left aligned in the first (History) section, or distributed evenly throughout the rest of the article per MOS. --Jza84 | Talk 22:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you have an example of somewhere where there would be confusion? Would it not be expected that names for places in Northern Ireland are in Ulster-Scots, and for places in Scotland in "standard" Scots? I certainly can add an Ulster-Scots option, if needed. 09:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
It is more that in Northern Ireland, lots of places are getting names in Ulster-Scots devised by the Ulster-Scots Agency, some of which may be traditional standard Scots while others look more like modern transcriptions of local pronunciations: sco:Northren Ireland v. sco:Norlin Airlann is an obvious example. Belfast is standard Scots, "kent as Bilfawst in Ulster Scots an aw". And it looks slightly odd to put just "Scots" in a place not in Scotland. It probably should come after Irish as being even less commonly used in writing.--Rumping (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed them. I think you made some errors in the lat/long and OS Grid refs. How did you obtain these? The way I do it is to use streetmap to locate the place, choosing a recognisable place within it is possible (church, railway station, nearest the centre of settlement, etc) and then I click on the option to change the coordinates. This brings up a table with a lot of information that can be copy and pasted into the infobox as required, such a latitude, longitude, OS Grid reference, postcode, and so on. When I did this for Ovingham and Falstone, the figures I was presented with differed by significant amounts from the ones that were present in the infobox fields at that time. If you use these a lot, you get a feel for what is a significantly different position or not, so the differences I saw may not seem so much if one is not as familar with them. DDStretch (talk)10:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for that, although I still don't understand why those two didn't work. The others (about twelve) have all been fine. I also use streetmap which gives a ten figure ref - I must have edited it wrong. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I've made errors before by copying them by hand to the infobox, so it can happen to anyone. Now I copy and paste using mouse clicks, which means one source of error is removed. If I reduce the accuracy a bit, then I could still make errors in manually rounding them, however. But it doesn't seem to have happened as much. DDStretch (talk)10:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Infobox UK place. 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.
_Template_(HR).png){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Red%20pog.svg&action=purge){kind=link}
