Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 7

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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Rhondda Cynon Taf

Recently Rhondda Cynon Taff was moved/restored to Rhondda Cynon Taf. Now amending Rhondda Cynon Taff to Rhondda Cynon Taf in individual town's infoboxes has caused the names of the Police and Fire service authorities to disappear e.g. Llantrisant. Any chance of fixing this or telling us how to go about it, please? Enaidmawr (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

PS Where is the syntax or code for the field 'Unitary_Wales' in the infobox? I'm going to propose changing our use of 'principal area' - heard of and used by nobody in the real world - for something more sensible and this will need changing. (If it's the wikipedia equivalent of a state secret, fair enough, but somebody will have to do it...). Thanks. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've enabled "Rhondda Cynon Taf", so everything should now display correctly if this is the text for unitary_wales. The text which appears beside unitary_wales ("Principal area") is also in this template; if you scan through the code, you'll see it immediately under the heading "4. District level divisions". I'll be interested to see your proposal. Warofdreams talk 09:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing Rhondda Cynon Taf, Warofdreams. As for the so-called 'principal areas', I'll get around to posting a proposal at Welsh wikipedians' talk page in the near future. I can assure you that absolutely nobody in Wales - media, councils themselves, citizens - uses the term and if you ask somebody in the street which 'principal area' they live in they won't have a clue what you're talking about. Guess the easiest catch-all term for convenience would be 'unitary authority areas' (although even the county boroughs are referred to simply as 'counties' in practice... ). Tnx again, Enaidmawr (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

km²

There are a few instances of km² in the infobox. Per MOSNUM can these be changed to km2 to yield km² please?

Also, given that the UK has the choice of putting either metric or imperial units first, would it make sense to put the value in the supplied units first and the calculated value in parentheses? ClickRick (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am fixing an alignment problem with firefox, and have added the four changes of km2 so that is taken care of. My practice has been to put the original unit first - UK was imperial measure so I use mile (km), regardless of what was supplied (France would be km (mile)). To select on the value supplied is going to be a lot of work - is it really worthwhile?. Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it really a lot of work? I'd have imagined it to be a simple case of changing the Area section to

{{#if:{{{area_total_sq_mi|}}}
   | <!--THEN square miles first (i.e. as it is)-->
   | <!--OR ELSE km² first (i.e. just reverse the order in which they appear in the output)-->
 }}

and the equivalent in the population density section. No?

—ClickRick (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if it is just the two places then it is easy enough. I thought there were more. It may take some time as I cannot locate the bug I have introduced. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, bug fixed; everything done - for new output see testcases here. I will wait a week before requesting the changes in case anyone else wants anything else done. (I still have to fix the alignment of Area and Population density). Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I just took a quick glance at the code change and at the comparative output page, and it's looking good here. Thanks. —ClickRick (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it is nice to be appreciated. I have now checked the output code and it is not an alignment problem. It is caused by ² being taller than ². I can fix it with 2 but it is not clear from MOSNUM that I am allowed to do that. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The recommended way to handle it is to edit your monobook.css (or other skin) style sheet and add something like

sup, sub { line-height: 0.75em; }

and while it works well enough for me I'm not 100% convinced that it's the "best" solution. I do like the size that  produces, but that might take some discussion to get a suitable change to MOS to become the accepted guideline, perhaps with an approach such as recommending the use of {{sup}} to do it consistently across the board.

It's up to you how to proceed, but try the CSS change and see what you think. —ClickRick (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the monobook option - it's not what I want the output to look like, but what users of this template want. I will leave things as they are at the moment and request the update next week. Twiceuponatime (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Population

There are times when the population of a place will be over 10,000 and the number should be formatted with the thousands separator. However, I notice that the infobox will calculate population density if you provide area and population, but not if the population is given with a comma.

{{formatnum:{{{population}}}}} will add the thousands separators if appropriate and {{formatnum:{{{population}}}|R}} will remove them (see http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Magic_words). Using that would let us show the number with a comma when the infobox is displayed and also calculate the pop.density no matter whether it is provided with or without a comma.

Worth doing? Any down-sides? —ClickRick (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the figures come with a qualifier such as "(2001 census)" and a reference what will happen in these cases with this formatting template? Keith D (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Good point.

{{formatnum:12345}} → 12,345

{{formatnum:12,345}} → 12,345

{{formatnum:12345|R}} → 12345

{{formatnum:12,345|R}} → 12345

{{formatnum:12345 (2001 census)}} → 12,345 (2,001 census)

{{formatnum:12,345 (2001 census)}} → 12,345 (2,001 census)

{{formatnum:12345 (2001 census)|R}} → 12345 (2001 census)

{{formatnum:12,345 (2001 census)|R}} → 12345 (2001 census)

{{formatnum:12345 {{ref|refid1}}}} → 12,345 ^[1]

{{formatnum:12,345 {{ref|refid2}}}} → 12,345 ^[2]

{{formatnum:12345 {{ref|refid3}}|R}} → 12345 ^[3]

{{formatnum:12,345 {{ref|refid4}}|R}} → 12345 ^[4]

{{formatnum:12345 <ref group="p">foo</ref>}} → 12,345 ^{[p 1]}

{{formatnum:12,345 <ref group="p">foo</ref>}} → 12,345 ^{[p 2]}

{{formatnum:12345 <ref group="p">foo</ref>|R}} → 12345 ^{[p 3]}

{{formatnum:12,345 <ref group="p">foo</ref>|R}} → 12345 ^{[p 4]}

^ foo1

^ foo2

^ foo3

^ foo4

In other words it's fine with the qualifier – except that it'll also format the year if it appears, potentially adding an unwanted comma – and fine with old-style references, but not with a new-style reference.

—ClickRick (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added this and it seems to work but I need to find some more testcases. Also changed London_dist to use mi(km)/km(mi) the same as the others. It is not calculating pop density from population/area - I will fix that tonight. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that, as Keith D pointed out above, references and qualifiers aren't without their problems. I'd say to hold off until those can be resolved. ClickRick (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the formats I was also thinking of was 1,113 ([[United Kingdom Census 2001|2001 census]])<ref name="2001 census"/> Keith D (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You obviously would not want the year to have a comma in it under any circumstances. Nor would you want it playing with the URL if that happened to be part of the reference given. Keith D (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

... which is exactly what I illustrated above with my examples, and why I conceded that the change I had initially suggested should not go ahead until the issues could be resolved. ClickRick (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made the change anyway as I needed to know what would happen (and added some more test cases). If you look at the last testcase - here it clearly will not work, so we are all agreed on that. I also wanted users to be able to use |population_density = 123456/123 - I need to make a small correction on that. And I have run out of time - I will get it done tonight. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Population - Proposal #2

Taking on board everything that has gone before, I propose that we:

document the requirement that the population= have only a numeric value, and
document the existing population_ref= field (added by Jimp in March 2008) for the decoration.

See this edit for an example of it in use.

This would require a change to every article which uses it, to split any existing population= fields accordingly to create population_ref= fields where necessary for the non-numeric portions. Then {{formatnum:{{{population}}} }} will work as expected, gaining the commas in the population output, and the corresponding {{formatnum:{{{population}}}|R}} will remove them for using the value in calculating population density. A bot could easily enough do that change using regular expressions to find the correct articles to edit and to make that edit correctly. I estimate that it would take something of the order of 2 days.

Does that sound better? —ClickRick (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that the field population_ref does not appear in the documentation. Keith D (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I entirely agree - the option should have been population + pop_ref + (area_sqmi OR area_km). The density can then be calculated properly and everything formatted nicely. However, that is not where we are, we are stuck with what is already there. I think you are being optimistic in the amount of work needed to undo what exists now.

The current position is that I have used #ifexpr to detect whether population is numeric and format accordingly. I have generated a new error, but at least the <ref> is not producing garbage. I still have a bug and have added tags (a) ... (e) to try and locate it. Sorry, for the delay - work keeps getting in the way. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made an estimate of the work involved based on a) the fact that there are 13,470 articles which transclude this template and b) the working speed of 10 edits per minute given to me by the developers of a bot (AWB) which is capable of doing the work. That yields a figure of some 22 hours once the initial test run has been completed to prove the regex. ClickRick (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't querying the time - I was querying my ability to get the job right first time (if I were doing it). I support you in going ahead with this. I have added extra code for the new options - I included a trap for non-numeric values but is has failed.

I am still having trouble with values containing commas. There seems to be a clash between #ifexpr; and {formatnum. I have managed to align the km² lines - I added   to the label, which makes them both drop down. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks like great work guys. I'm looking forward to seeing this enacted (AWB/bot?). Thank you. --Jza84 | Talk 11:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably worth publicising the population_ref= field and encouraging people to populate it rather than add information to the population= field. I would suggest as a minimum the UK notice board and the Geography project, though it would not hurt to inform the regional projects as well. This can be done regardless of any change to the template or bot activity as the field is available. Keith D (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I have changed the template's documentation to support that, but won't be offended if anyone makes it read even more cleanly. —ClickRick (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Code updated for new options and working as intended. I have trapped any errors so I can give a useful message – see in particular Belfast. (There is still a bug in the original.) The main bug was that I was using area_total_sq_km instead of area_total_km2. I have added a hidden link (not working) for the errors so we will be able to hand correct any problems. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I've got the bot code written and have performed limited testing of it in action. If anyone's interested, the UI to specify the replacements is File:TheTemplator.png. What I'd appreciate next is two things:

approval in principle to take it to WP:RFBA, subject to proper testing
some more test cases in sandboxes or user pages to try out actual conditions it's going to hit, so I can see how much more work it'll need.

ClickRick (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That looks good, the only comment is that all your tests start with a valid population. What if the whole string is invalid - see Belfast. And might it be useful to also split area? It already has area_footnotes, but some may include refs. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I take your point about the invalid population value. I've added a test for it, but I'm reasonably sure it'll just take the whole thing and put it into the population_ref= field, leaving population= empty. I'll see how that pans out. Please feel free to create your own sandbox of test cases for me and just let me know where it is.

As to the area, that could be done at the same time as the population field change or we could do the two changes as two separate passes; bear in mind that the changed text will all be in one part of the template. What's important is that we ensure that we have consensus to do the changes, and while I feel there would be little objection to moving the population and population_ref fields so they appear together and in that order, we might meet slightly more resistance if the area field(s) were to move such that they were necessarily just before or just after the population fields, even though the two are naturally related.

ClickRick (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The bot code initially struggled with Belfast's infobox (good test case), but I have dealt with that.

What I can see is that cases where there is no numeric portion of the population= field will need adjustment in the infobox template. Specifically, if the infobox has an empty population= field but has something in population_ref= then the template should show it (it currently does not). I believe that should be fixed in the "Population and statistics" section, with an "else" portion of the {{#if:{{{population|}}}| test.

Will that cause any problems? ClickRick (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem - I had already dealt with that. Don't worry about changing the order of items (see above re area) - I have seen no consistency in the order. It is more important to tell people what we are doing i.e. we are splitting population into its numerical part and reference part so that we can calculate population_density automatically (when population and area are present). When you are happy with the bot it might be better to start a new section - some people only look at the bottom of the talk page. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Distance to Charing Cross

Distance to London never made sense for places within London for {{infobox UK place}}. I've implemented a 'simple' version. Use either 'charingX_distance= {{convert}}, etc' or/ 'charingX_distance_mi' or/ 'charingX_distance_km' handles the conversion for you. 'charingX_direction' = cardinal direction to Charing X. I could surround it by a #if Greater London to stop districts outside London using it - but it just increases the complexity of the template. See Hackney Central for an example. It should have no effect on 'other places in the UK' - but do let me know if I've cocked it up. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

TheDJ simplified the conversion of distances - that was fine. In doing so s/he removed the 'charingX_direction' parameter - was that meant? If so, any particular reason? cheers Kbthompson (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible bot tasks

Some of the suggestions which have been made recently would require small changes to be made to every article which uses this template in order to ensure more consistent usage, and thus more consistent appearance. For example, there is functionality which can be made available but only if constraints are put on the values which certain parameters can take, such as requiring population= and area_total_km2= to be numeric in order to calculate population density automatically.

Given the scale of such an undertaking (the template is currently used by something over 13,000 articles) I have written a bot which would be capable of making such changes. The fundamental requirement is that no existing articles should be "broken" by changes to the template or by the bot, so any existing usage should be accommodated. I would like to propose the following tasks:

Per the discussion in "Population - Proposal #2" above:
- Require the population= value to be numeric, to allow for automatic calculation of population density
- Put any non-numeric portion from current population= values into the population_ref= field, combining any existing value in the population_ref= field as necessary
- Require the area_total_km2= value to be numeric, to allow for automatic calculation of population density
- Put any non-numeric portion from current area_total_km2= values into the area_footnotes= field, combining any existing value in the area_footnotes= field as necessary
Per the discussion in "Small text and image sizes" above:
- Remove existing static_image= and static_image_2= fields
- Put filenames from static_image= and static_image_2= fields into new static_image_name= and static_image_name_2= fields (just filenames, no link, no File: or Image: prefix, no image sizes)
- Put any specified image sizes in the range 40-199 into new static_image_size= and static_image_size_2= fields (on the basis that anything specifically small has probably been specified for a good reason)
 - Note: Add code to the template to default any other sizes, or missing sizes, to 240 for consistency
- Remove  markup from image captions
 - Note: If consensus is to use  for all captions, it should be added consistently in the template.

—ClickRick (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This all looks good, but to just clarify - am I right in thinking that the static image 1 will be forced to 240px in size? This makes it line up with the maps used, also set to 240px, so if not proposed above, then I would strongly support/propose/recommend it. Static image 2 was always intended for seals and arms so that could remain undefined (or limited to a range?), so that's fine, but certainly static image 1 was always intended for a city-, town- or village- -scape, or else some kind of civic landmark or landscape emblematic of a place.

Also, I belive the consensus was for small text for captions, but there was once a suggestion it be de-italicised (I however prefer the italics). Regardless, yes small text was prefered in the archives.

Finally, would it be possible to add a task to the bot?.... make all post towns appear in capital letters as per the document file and as per used by Royal Mail? They should also be delinked per the document file. Might be worth doing as part of this overhaul, but I don't know if it's technically possible. --Jza84 | Talk 11:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To take your points in turn:

static_image_1 could be forced to 240px if that is the consensus. I know there was at least one village in Norfolk (there are "only" 550 or so of them so forgive me for not remembering exactly which one) which used a picture of a village sign, but that was unusually tall so made sense to leave narrower; it might do well to have the photograph cropped to just the top of the sign rather than include the whole of the post, I guess.
Removing the 'small' style would allow the template to apply whatever consensus was reached about the desired styling and to do it consistently.
The post_town field is indeed documented as you describe, and this is another "consistency" change I had thought of a while back but had forgotten about. Thank you for reminding me. The task of capitalising is beyond the capabilities of the bot I currently have (it is limited to simple search/replace) but I would be more than happy to undertake the task of writing the required custom code if it is considered desirable to do so.

—ClickRick (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. In which case, I support the running of this bot at the earliest possible opportunity. --Jza84 | Talk 12:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

With regard to capitalising post towns, why can't you just use {{allcaps}} in this template? --Dr Greg (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that is a good idea. Anyone know how to integrate it? --Jza84 | Talk 19:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Er, isn't it just a case of replacing {{{post_town}}} by {{allcaps|{{{post_town}}}}} in all the relevant places? --Dr Greg (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds too easy!.... but great if that's all that's needed. :-) --Jza84 | Talk 20:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Great suggestion - especially as it doesn't break links, where the post town is linked (although, for some reason, the instructions ask editors not to link it). I've implemented it. Warofdreams talk 20:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

All of the above proposals have now been done here. Please make any changes there; or just leave it for me to do. The testcases are at testcases - see Maidstone for option and Belfast for the image-size option. I just need some decisions on which options to keep e.g. for captions. Can I make one request for a change: use static_image_width rather than static_image_size – this will then match with Template:Infobox UK feature which otherwise uses the same as the proposed. And, italics was mentioned above - italics is used for the map caption not the image caption. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's a support for small captions for static images from me. Also, am I right in thinking that the infobox will automatically set images at 240px, and only change it if a width is specified? That would be the ideal solution for me. :) --Jza84 | Talk 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 - Minor fix to give an underlining after capital_distance. Yes, the default is 240px unless _width is specified (and it uses Template:px so either 100 or 100px can be used). Can I request that charingX_direction be merged to _distance: I have only just spotted that charingX_ (see above) has added _direction as well as _distance - all the others just have _distance. I will change the documentation tonight to match - the existing is badly laid out. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 - The results of my test run against your test data can be seen here. (I have undone that edit so we can continue to refine either the tests or the bot's behaviour). I have not attempted to make changes to the static_image size yet, as I think we should have more discussion regarding that, in particular whether we should force static_image to be 240px and allow a _width specification on static_image_2, which would be my preference.
 My recommendation, though, in light of this test result, in particular the unnecessary addition of area-related fields if only the population fields are being affected and area-related fields are otherwise unchanged, will be to effect the changes in several passes, specifically:
 population and population_ref
 
 area and area_footnotes
 
 static_image and _width
 —ClickRick (talk) 10:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 - I am happy with that - it is always safer to take things one step at a time. Image widths - the default has to be 240px, which I think is specified somewhere. I would prefer to give users the extra choice on both images - it gives that extra option for the article which does not fit the rules. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 - I've just taken a look at the source of your new (/Test) template and have a couple of questions: should static_image_name_2 be named static_image_2_name to be consistent with static_image_2_caption? And should we add static_image_2_width to parallel static_image_width? —ClickRick (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 My intention was to have everything as x_x_x_2. I shall doublecheck. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 
 You were right – I have no excuse - that was a sloppy piece of editing. Now reads as I intended i.e. static_image_x_2 (and Belfast changed to use _2 to test it, which I should have done in the first place). I found Bywell which has a tall image - probably better with width less than 240px, but there must be a more extreme example somewhere. I have also added code to cope with commas in distances (doesn't work yet). Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 More extreme? Try Helhoughton. As I said, it'd benefit from simple cropping to improve the impact of the picture, but I think we can all imagine the sort of picture where that would not be appropriate. —ClickRick (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 Added test (at end) with two images to testcases - I hadn't tested that before. Fixed the comma error in distance, and then realised there are no places in UK that far away. Changed area and density to use Template:Convert and as usual included a bug. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 Please compare—side-by-side if you can—your version, my changes applied to the existing infobox (i.e. left-hand of your tests), and my changes applied to your /Test infobox (i.e. right-hand of your tests). I think my bot did the right changes but I'm not sure about some of the changes to the template code, particular the lack of space between the population and the reference, and the precision of the population density. Incidentally, I have been given approval at the BRFA to run a limited trial (just the population part, not the area part or the image part) to see how it goes. ClickRick (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
   now precedes population ref (and also for capital distances). If you mean the very long population density; that is caused by the input (75,070/123) which is invalid. Belfast population density now has an error - I can't see why at the moment. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 Your changes this morning look good. —ClickRick (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 - At the testcases page, in a couple of the "new" infoboxes, the population and popN density fields seem to appear twice (at least in my browser). Is there reason for this? Last night it was all of them, but now (for me) it just seems to be the Wales, London and Northern Ireland tests. --Jza84 | Talk 20:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 - That is quite deliberate. The new code contains (1) the revised code for the existing population options and (2) the new code for the proposed population options. When a consensus is reached I will chop out the rejected one. Sorry for the confusion. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 - That's fine. Was there a debate about a certain style to use? Was there a preference of one style over another? --Jza84 | Talk 11:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 Sections #km², #Population and #Population_-_Proposal_.232 above. —ClickRick (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The first trial run of 30 edits has just completed. Please look at the results and confirm that we're good to go for the automatic run of this step. Given that it's potentially going to make edits to a high proportion of the 13,000+ articles which transclude this template, I would appreciate multiple pairs of eyes not just looking for any problems with this edit but looking for cases which might derail either this one or the area-related one which will be next. —ClickRick (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

They look great to me. No problem. I am willing and able to help in any small way I can. --Jza84 | Talk 21:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 10:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Step 1 is now complete - my thanks to everyone who helped get it this far. The template can now safely assume that the value in the |population= field is numeric and flag an error if it is not - indeed, I would recommend that that be done. However, it can not yet assume that the |area_total_km2= or |area_total_sq_mi= values are numeric (that will be the job of pass 2, which I shall now take for bot approval) so the /sandbox version can not yet go live. —ClickRick (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Correction: the template can safely assume that the area values are numeric - I ran a check through every article and there is nothing to do to make them conform to that requirement. On that basis, I believe the template can now go live from the sandbox, and we can move on to the other changes, such as the images and the Welsh Communities. ClickRick (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Looks like the good prep work paid off. Thanks ClickRick. --Jza84 | Talk 20:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Community in Wales

Where/how should the name of the community for places in Wales be entered? They correspond (roughly) to the civil parishes of England, but if you enter it in the civil_parish parameter, it displays as "Parish", not as "Community". I have checked previous discussions, and the closest I can find is in archived discussion 1 The "parish_status" and "parish" fields. Redrose64 (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This would appear to be an oversight in the infobox. The |parish_status= field appears to have been dropped since that discussion you linked to, so perhaps we need a new parameter which could be given as |welsh_community=Pontardawe, and tested alongside |civil_parish=? —ClickRick (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree: but I do not have the necessary skills to amend the template source. How should the attention of a suitable person be drawn? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The template is protected such that only an admin can do it. Luckily, we have a couple of admins who watch this talk page and have the requisite skills - they just like to be sure that any change being proposed is the "right" one before they make it. —ClickRick (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems a very easy change and I am willing to do. All I need is a clear statement of what is needed. Do you want a new parameter or do you want the parish output as community if country=Wales? I will have a look tonight to see if there are any difficulties. Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As a computer programmer, I'd go with option 2; but that seems to go against the general form elsewhere in the template, where distinct parameters are used - e.g. shire_county / lieutenancy_wales; unitary_england / unitary_wales; etc. So I think that community_wales would be consistent.

When present, the item would be displayed just above |unitary_wales=; the text to display in the left-hand column would be "Community" (although this will not be 100% correct, see Local government in Wales); and in the right-hand column, the parameter value. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

New parameter (community_wales) added to the new code. The template will be updated when the population bot (see above) is run, and I will update the documentation then. See test case here (which has both parish and community). Is the link what you want (Local_government_in_Wales#Communities). It may be possible to replace civil_parish with community_wales for places in Wales but it is not trivial. ClickRick is the bot person so it would be for him to decide. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly achievable, though it would take a separate pass from the other changes already on the table, so as to filter specifically on |country=Wales (assuming that's the correct test). I'm happy to add this to the list, and it's simpler than the image-related changes we're discussing so should be easier to get done quickly. —ClickRick (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

An alternative would be to continue to use the civil_parish field for communities in Wales, but change the template to show appropriate text beside it. Warofdreams talk 10:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that my first comment of 13:00, 13 July 2009 partially agrees here. Are there other fields in this infobox where the description varies according to some rule? If not, I'd say entirely new field. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

When the text "Community" is clicked, this should indeed link to (Local_government_in_Wales#Communities). To be quite honest I don't know the impact on existing articles - I have not gone looking for articles on Welsh places which already included a populated |civil_parish= field. I do think that the documentation should state "civil_parish (?) OR community_wales (?)" just like the existing fields unitary_wales, etc.

This all started when I added the infobox to Red Roses and wanted some place within that box show the community name Eglwyscummin. I just wanted consistency without causing offence to somebody who might say "hey - what's this Parish nonsense? We don't have those in Wales". --Redrose64 (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that the other parameters are, as far as I can tell, all specific to the local requirements (e.g. having both |lieutenancy_scotland= and |lieutenancy_wales=, or having |unitary_wales= even though |shire_county= could theoretically have been re-used and re-labelled), I would opt for the |community_wales= parameter. As you say, it makes it clearest to the people who are most likely to be editing such articles - those who live there. —ClickRick (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that this is quite the place to mention it (or whether it should be a section in its own right} but there appears to be a similar problem with the Infobox for places in Scotland. Whilst civil parishes are still used for statistical purposes, in particular for Census figures, it would also be useful if there was an entry for community council areas. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree in principle; my intention was to indicate a hierarchy of local government. Parishes in Scotland have no LG responsibility; however, communities do. But compare the corresponding sections in Local government in Wales and Local government in Scotland - the community in Welsh local government seems to be more defined and to have a more "devolved" role than the community in Scotland. Then, how about Northern Ireland? The article Local government in Northern Ireland states that there are 26 district councils, but I cannot determine what subdivisions those have. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The districts of NI are subdivided into electoral wards, parishes and townlands. However, only the electoral wards have any role in government. ~Asarlaí 09:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This seems to have been set up - for Wales at least - since 10:55, 25 July 2009. Thanks --Redrose64 (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:ALT and the static image upgrades

Hi all,

It's been brought to my attention that Alternative Text (see WP:ALT) is now a requirement of the Featured Article criteria. Therefore, we need an alt text field for our static image(s). {{Infobox bridge}} has one, and for an example of it in use see Chelsea Bridge. Could this be worked into the upgrades we're doing? --Jza84 | Talk 21:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have said yes, but WP:ALT suggests that it might not be as simple as taking the caption text. Or is that what you're proposing as a starting measure, and generate a new |static_image_alt_text= parameter using the caption to get the ball at least rolling? —ClickRick (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This should be entirely separate from the caption text, as the example of Chelsea Bridge demonstrates. There would be no point in defaulting to the caption text. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, alt text describes what's in the image whereas the caption gives context. eg: [[Image:Nance Redferne & Chattox.jpg|right|thumb|alt=Two women standing arm-in arm. The taller and younger of the two, fashionably dressed, stands on the left. Her mother, much shorter and slightly stooping, is wearing a black gown reaching to the ground with a black pointed hat.|Two of the accused witches, Anne Whittle (Chattox) and her daughter Anne Redferne. Illustration from [[William Harrison Ainsworth]]'s 1849 novel, ''The Lancashire Witches''.]] Nev1 (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In which case would it be appropriate to add support for a new |static_image_alt_text= parameter to the template and to edit each article to add an empty parameter if it does not already have one? —ClickRick (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think so; we could get a bot to update the infoboxes and drop the UK wikiprojects a note about alt text. Nev1 (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds simple enough to do. I will read all the quoted info and try and do it tonight. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The first part was easy. We now have {{{static_image_alt}}} and {{{static_image_2_alt}}}. The second part is more difficult. What do we do when the field is empty. I have put in for the moment “No text available” but WP:ALT is unclear. Should it be static_image_caption or Link=. Test case – the first (Maidstone) is alt, the last (Special case) is alt + empty. Twiceuponatime (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The first bit looks spot on - that really nails WP:ALT for me. I'm unsure what you mean about the second part; do you mean what should we do if no static image is used, or something else? --Jza84 | Talk 16:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant when the alt= field is empty. Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be a default alt text (ie: something to fill in when it's empty) as the caption should suffice and there's no point in using the caption as the alt text as a text reader would just repeat itself. Nev1 (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is something that I wish would be updated to be consistent across all infobox templates. In the two I've updated recently I used "no alt text available" as the default if none was supplied. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In all the infoboxes that I've added alt text support for, I've used the equivalent of "|alt={{{alt|}}}". That is, the default alt text is empty. This matches the usual behavior for thumbnails: if you don't specify alt text, the alt text is empty. Also, I expect that a visually-impaired reader would rather not be bothered by hearing "no alt text available no alt text available" all the time. Eubulides (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I'll go back and fix the two I did recently. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed a potential issue here: if static_image_name is used but no static_image_alt is given, then the thumbnail doesn't link to the image. e.g. Burnsall. ClickRick (talk) 08:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is something to do with the empty link= added in the template. Keith D (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The code in that area is:

{{#if: {{{static_image_alt|}}}|alt={{{static_image_alt}}}|link=}}

i.e. if the alt text has been provided then set the alt text on the image, otherwise suppress the link. Was that the intention? WP:ALT#When_to_specify says to suppress the link if it is an icon or other non-thumbnail, but I don't believe that applies here, so I would be tempted simply to remove the |link= altogether, unless someone who knows more about alt text requirements can show me what I've misunderstood.

ClickRick (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I put that link= in. I didn't find WP:ALT as clear as it could have been. There is a comment somewhere that defaulting to the image name is a duplication (although it may depend on your browser). I decided to suppress the link as users can always put in alt=No text available. The other problem is that we are dealing with two types of users: those who understand and deliberatly leave the alt out; and those who are not aware of it. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the only case that an image should not have a link to the image page is when it is purely decorative. Also to quote WP:ALT "A captioned image that is not a thumbnail can omit the alt text when the caption is brief and adequate for alt text. For such images, the alt text defaults to the caption instead of being empty." which implies that alt text is not always a requirement for non-thumbnail images. Keith D (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That description is incorrect, there is no default alt text. Perhaps it once worked in that way, by using the caption as the default, but it certainly doesn't now, and neither should it. Alt text is for the benefit of screen-reader software, so it is required in all but the most exceptional cases, nothing to do with thumbnails. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume that the |alt= in question is used to construct the alt= attribute for the HTML <img> tag. The alt= attribute has been permitted in that tag since at least HTML 2.0, and doesn't just give a feed to the audible add-on. My HTML 4.0 manual states "This attribute specifies a text alternative for the image if the browser or application cannot display images ... the importance of this attribute cannot be over-emphasised—remember that many people turn off graphics, or use an application that cannot display them. Many browsers will also display the ALT text while waiting for the image to download, and some will use it when printing hardcopy versions of the page.". Besides that, some browsers will show the alt text in a tooltip if the mouse is hovered over the image — I don't think that is a requirement but it's certainly how Firefox 3, IE 7 and Netscape 4 all behave.

Homer, Alex; Ullman, Chris; Wright, Steve (1998). "Chapter 4 - Images and Inclusions". Instant HTML Programmer's Reference (HTML 4.0 ed.). Chicago: Wrox Press. p. 77. ISBN 1-861001-56-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

--Redrose64 (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that's what I thought too. What I am confused about is whether there is any requirement to suppress the |link= parameter under either condition. I have updated Template:Infobox UK place/sandbox‎ and the Maidstone case on Template:Infobox UK place/testcases‎ to illustrate the difference. Notice that the second image on the left-hand infobox there does not have an image link, but I think that it ought to. Is there any reason to suppress it just because there is no alt text? ClickRick (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you've linked the two things in your mind, so to speak. Images should be linked whether they have alt text or not, the two things are in no way related. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In other words you're saying that I was right in my 14:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC) post when I suggested that the |link= could simply be removed altogether. I shall ask for that to be done. ClickRick (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The new insistence on alt text for images at FAC is described here. It has nothing to do with html. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As there is clearly incorrect information in WP:ALT then that needs to be updated and clarified as to what is the current situation. Keith D (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bot issues

I've had a user note that the population value disappeared from an infobox. What happened was that |population= only contained a non-numeric value (it started <513), so the entire value was moved into the |population_ref= value. Can we expedite a change to the template such that the two fields will both be shown if either contains a value? I have halted the bot for now so as to avoid any further instances. —ClickRick (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Denshaw might be another example of this come to think of it. It has a "c.", as in "circa" 500 people in the population field. I know (or think) we are aiming to have a numeric value only in here in the long term (i.e. no commas?); would symbols like < or > or Abt. or C. not function if we used a particular template? --Jza84 | Talk 17:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The intention was that the |population= field should be numeric so that population density can be calculated automatically. Commas can be tolerated, as we've already discussed, but you're right that "c.500" will stop the calculation, so would have to be moved to the |population_ref= field instead. It's a relatively easy change to make sure that this cause no problems, though, so I've just halted operation until that has been done. —ClickRick (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact I hadn't looked but the change has now been done so I can resume. Any more issues, just leave a note on the bot's talk page. —ClickRick (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have had a couple of users raise the point that non-numeric values are being put into the |population_ref= field even though they are technically the population figure, such as "c.400" or "<500". I have changed the wording in the documentation to clarify the usage, but if anyone would care to improve it still further I'd be grateful. ClickRick (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The new code is now ready at sandbox (no longer at /Test). It might be easier to update the code first and then release the bot. That would eliminate the (apparent) errors for something the new code deals with. The funny values might be better as e.g. 40 (estimated). Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some of the values and wording might be accommodated in other ways but there's always bound to be "yet another exception" to prove us wrong, so tolerating any and all input is the only way. As to releasing the new code, it's difficult to diff the current code against the sandbox contents to be able to examine the change properly, so I've used my own sandbox to produce the diff - see it here. I shall look at that this afternoon, but there are a lot of changes, most of which are trivial, so it'll take some time to verify the pertinent ones. Given the extent of our combined /testcases testing, however, I can see little reason to worry that there'll be any problems which could come to light at this stage. ClickRick (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why all the 'class="mergedrow"'s have become 'class=mergedrow's ? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 13:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. However, that doesn't affect the part I was interested in - ie |community_wales=. Have examined that, and it appears to be just what is needed. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That was part of my tidying up. I have compared the code with the html output. "mergedtoprow" is output as mergedtoprow so that is now in the code. Whether it actually saves any processing time is another matter. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just realised that the show-stopper to the sandbox version going live just yet is illustrated in the Maidstone examples on the testcases page - we have to wait until the first bot run has completed before it can happen. I am making good progress, though hitting some "interesting" interpretations of the infobox documentation as I go. ClickRick (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As an aside here, "circa" ought not to be used for population figures as it is with Denshaw anyway, as circa means "at the approximate time of", not "about". --Malleus Fatuorum 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, such questions are beyond the scope of the current bot, but you're right about usage, as wikt:circa confirms. Speaking personally, we ought not to have any instances of "about" or "approximately" either, unless the cited reference uses such language, but I'm not about to volunteer to go through and check all 13,000 (and those are just the ones with the infobox) to fix them! ClickRick (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nowrap template

{{editprotected}} Can someone please remove the nowrap template from the population_ref field? It doesn't serve any purpose other than break things, see Hagley.

Change:

<td>{{#if:{{{population_ref|}}}|{{formatnum:{{{population}}}}} {{nowrap|{{{population_ref|}}}}}|{{{population}}}}}</td>

To:

<td>{{#if:{{{population_ref|}}}|{{formatnum:{{{population}}}}} {{{population_ref|}}}|{{{population}}}}}</td>

Thanks! Jeni ^(talk)_(Jenuk1985) 22:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 03:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Population task completed

ClickRick has reported that the bot task to split population to population + population_ref has been completed. The updated template code is ready here. Can someone please update the template. The new code includes all the odds and ends discussed above, and has been tested - see testcases. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Change requested: copy the whole of Template:Infobox UK place/sandbox over the existing source. The change has been fully discussed above. ClickRick (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, please do a check of some articles to verify that everything is as you expected. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I added a hidden link to the code which has worked correctly - see what links here at testcases. There are 21 articles with a bad population including Berhamstead:

| official_name= Berkhamsted
| population = 16,243 (2001 est.)<ref>[http://www.hertsdirect.org/infobase/docs/spreadsheets/popestsett3.xls Population 2001 census]</ref>(15,493 1991 est.)<ref>[http://www.hertfordshire.com/pages/towns/show-data.asp?id=61 Population]</ref> (10,785 1951 est.)<ref>[http://www.hemeltoday.co.uk/berkhamsted-news/Bursting-at-the-seams.3818114.jp 1951 Population]</ref>

I will work through them later this afternoon (or Monday if I get held up). Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Done No obvious links between them. Several had no space between population & ref; some had pop_ref present yet pop had not been split??? The ones dealt with were: Glasgow Harrogate Berkhamsted Isle of Portland Harrogate Basingstoke Chipping Ongar Pensby Crook, County Durham Heywood, Greater Manchester Seaton, Cumbria Harpole Haverthwaite Thurcaston Latteridge Nettlebed Blisworth Odcombe Chipping, Lancashire Alltwen Capel-y-ffin Flimby Courteenhall Twiceuponatime (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. They look like they all crept in after the bot run, but hopefully now the template enforces the field to be numeric they should be avoided, or at least picked up much more quickly. Right, images next! ClickRick (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem with coordinates at top of page

Resolved

The display and link for the coordinates at the top of the page produced by this infobox seem to have changed in the last day or so. It used to display something like (e.g. for Giggleswick) :

54.0738°N 2.2896°W

with URI

http://stable.toolserver.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Giggleswick&params=54.0738_N_-2.2896_E

but now it displays

GB_type:city(1410) 54.0738°N 2.2896W

with URI

http://stable.toolserver.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Giggleswick&params=54.0738_N_-2.2896_E_region:

I assume "GB_type:city(1410)" wasn't mean to appear here? (1410 is Giggleswick's population). The added "_region:" on the end of the URI causes GeoHack not to display the "Great Britain" links on the right of the page, which are the ones I usually want (MultiMap, OS Maps, StreetMap etc.).

Thanks for all your work on this amazing infobox. Hope you can fix this little issue. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the problem is a space where it probably shouldn't be: the code is region: {{#ifeq: {{{crown_dependency|}}}|Isle of Man|IM|GB}}; changing this to region:{{#ifeq: {{{crown_dependency|}}}|Isle of Man|IM|GB}} (without the space after "region") would probably fix the problem. snigbrook (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just edited the sandbox version to do just that, and tested it by editing the testcases page and previewing it to see the result, and it looks good. I'll get it made live. 23:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's fixed it. Many thanks! Qwfp (talk) 08:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot task: images

It's all been discussed already at length, but I feel we ought to be sure we're all in agreement about the proposed changes to the image-related fields. What I believe we've agreed so far is:

recode |static_image=[[File:xxx.jpg|250px]] as |static_image_name=xxx.jpg|static_image_width=250
remove specification in |static_image_caption= (so it can be done consistently in the template)
add an empty |static_image_alt= as a hint to get users to add alt text, per WP:ALT

I can add a comment to the alt parameters to tell editors to look at WP:ALT, if that is considered useful. I can also completely remove the image_width values if they are within a certain range (e.g. 150-299), though I could see that as potentially more contentious, but I do find it odd when I see a page where the picture is "just a bit" out of alignment, in this case with the associated map, so the opportunity is here if there's consensus to do it.

You can see my own testing in my own sandbox, in particular this edit. The bot request has also been filed, and I shall be watching any comments which arise there.

What I'd like now, though, is

any comments on that test edit such as whether the comment in the alt fields is a useful one
any articles which might break this bot
whether image sizes in a certain range can simply be removed, and what that range might be
if there's nothing else, even a "looks good, go for it" reply will be appreciated!

ClickRick (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain the second point on ? Thanks. Keith D (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 6#Small_text_and_image_sizes raised it first, then Template talk:Infobox UK place#Possible_bot_tasks re-raised it, but basically it stems from the observation that some infobox users have used for their image captions, and an apparent consensus that that's a good thing to do for all of them, so the two ways to do it are either

use a bot and change every caption to use
use a bot and remove every instance of in image captions and add it once in the template.

I am proposing the second of those two. ClickRick (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I was mis-reading what you were proposing to do and it did not make sense. It seems better to do it consistently in the template, as you are proposing, than have to do it in each article that uses the template. It can also be changed easily if consensus changes. Keith D (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out too that we should be aiming to have images set at 240px, rather than 250px. I would even be bold and say that should be the maximum width permitted if it isn't to be the standard/only size, as it then keeps any image to the width of the maps and stops ugly white space. --Jza84 | Talk 00:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I like this sort of boldness. Yes, the documentation does ask that people use 240px, which is why the default in the template is already coded to use 240px if no width is specified (if they use the new |static_image_name= rather than the current |static_image= specification. This is why I suggested that we could remove the width altogether. The only question in my mind is the range of current values for which we do that, and your suggestion sets no upper limit. I would personally be happy with that as long as there's no-one using an unusually wide picture there, and even in that case I would suggest that a panoramic view would probably not look good in that context so should probably be moved. ClickRick (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record the new code includes all these proposals except for , so running the bot does not require any more changes to the template. Re: - I agree it should be standardised, but there will be articles where the author has deliberatly chosen normal (or even <big>) so may need some more thought. I agree with setting a maximum width (of 240px) but it may be unwise to force smaller ones up - see Belfast (which uses 120px). The comment field of WP:ALT is great. Can you retest Randon Caption in test 3 - the duplicate line is overwriting the caption. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation that the template code is ready for these changes. I agree about Belfast's image - it just doesn't look "right" at 240px - but in reality I can't imagine there being too many like that. I know the "thumb" specification gives a value of 180px for most people, and that might be a reasonable lower limit to force upwards. i.e. anything specifically smaller than 180 would be used but 180+ would be removed and thus forced (implicitly) to 240. As to the "random caption", that was a test case I thought of and then forgot about until you mentioned it. (edited to add)Aberdyfi has that issue, but it doesn't show up in the same way as my test case.(/edit) No matter what I test for that'll be a hard one to catch (I know there are instances of center and even centre among the thousands of articles using it), but for those that I can catch how about if I use both the caption from the [[File: link and also the static_image_caption value, separated by a  ? In the meantime, I have updated the sandbox version by removing support for static_image, a change which can be made live after the bot run. ClickRick (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Another example is Tranwell Airfield (which uses 180). It is not actually about absolute size, but relative size - that RAF flag HAS to be smaller than the main image. It is not easy, but I might agree with 200+, otherwise we are likely to get a lot of feedback from those who have been quite deliberate in their choice. Your proposal about the caption sounds fine. p.s. it was not necessary to remove static_image from the code. Unlike population, using the old style will not cause any problems, and we won't have to go hunting for the faulty articles. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

While doing the pass removing duplicated co-ordinates in the title area there was 1 which might cause problems with the sizing of the image, it had an upright image set to 200px and the caption on the right, rather than below the image. Cannot remember which one apart from it would be about 200 in the list and one I did not change. Keith D (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll personally see this example as a show-stopper. On the one hand we have cases like Greyabbey at 225px and Heage at 250px, which seem like clear-cut cases that ought to be standardised, and on the other we have Belfast (120px), Tranwell Airfield (as noted above, 180px), and Hirwaun (which might be the example you were thinking of) at 200px but with the caption to the right.

Standardisation is a good thing IMO but forcing people to use something that they're simply going to object to is not clever. I'm going to abandon this idea for now, unless other people come up with a request for a change for which there is consensus. ClickRick (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed this discussion, reviewed the articles, and reviewed the changes I proposed.

The "double caption" which I anticipated as a potential issue won't occur - there are no actual instances of it
When moving the image size from the File: spec I shall not change the image size (in order to avoid any of the issues which have been discussed already) but instead suggest that it be limited in the template, where it can be managed consistently and changed in the future if desired - my own sandbox and my sandbox template show how this could be done.

With those changes I would now like to proceed. Yes or no? ClickRick (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thumbs up from me Jeni ^(talk) 21:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I would say go for it. Though I have reservations about using for captions, from an accessibility perspective, this should not prevent us removing the mark-up from the articles and talking about the sizing before applying in the template. Keith D (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A bit of feedback from the trial if I may. The bot appears to be adding the static_image_2_... parameters each time.[5] Is this really required? I think its safe to say that the large majority of articles are unlikely to have a second image? It's only a minor niggle, but it seems worth looking into avoiding it if possible? Jeni ^(talk) 11:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Space after region

{{editprotected}} Per #Problem_with_coordinates_at_top_of_page above, please remove the space after region: in the "Co-ordinates for top of page" section. This has been tested in the sandbox version. 23:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Also fixed the space after scale:. --- RockMFR 01:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Per #WP:ALT_and_the_static_image_upgrades above, there are two occurrences of |link= which should be removed. ClickRick (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Done Keith D (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wales map (again)

There still appears to be a problem with the locator element of the Wales map. Abersoch and Aberdaron both disappear into the sea. Y Rhiw doen't look as bad, but still appears to be a couple of miles west of its true position, and Botwnnog now appears to be on the coast (global warming having an effect on sea levels already?). This only appears to be a problem in the Llŷn Peninsula, so perhaps it is the coastline on the map that needs tweaking. As far as I can tell Nefyn appears correct, so maybe it's just the southern coastline of the peninsula. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe its not an error, maybe it is just predicting the effects of global warming? Ok, I'll get my coat. Jeni ^(talk) 17:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Alignment

Why is the map not centred anymore? it looks really scruffy. The map of Ebbw Vale for instance is moved to the left. It looks awful. Somebody please centre it. 21:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that it has always been this way and only shows strange when the image is wider than 240px. Keith D (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Part of my proposal above would enable us to limit images to 240px to deal with exactly this type of issue. ClickRick (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a nudge that I'm still strongly supporting the 240px limit, and for exactly for the reasons above. :) --Jza84 | Talk 09:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should change it to 240px max then, stop it doing that.. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Template out of step with sandbox

As a result of some of the above changes the template is now out of step with the sandbox.

template has {caption}; sandbox has {caption}. I introduced the template version in readiness for a decision on compulsory which we don't seem to have taken.
template allows {static_image}; sandbox doesn't. [It may have been removed to allow testing of the bot]. The documentation flags it as deprecated which presumably means permitted. Do we need a hidden link in there so we can edit them by hand (as per population).

Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Taking those in order:

The only reason this has not yet been done is that I will not take silence to mean acceptance and blindly proceed with the changes merely because no-one objects; I have asked for review of the proposals (above, changed again last night in view of the discussion over the last few days) and am awaiting reconfirmation before I proceed. I would personally like to see this change implemented for consistency.
The |static_image= parameter is deprecated, which means that it is supported but that the new parameters are preferred. I would personally favour a total transition to the new parameters and the removal of |static_image=. What do you mean by "hidden link"?

ClickRick (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A hidden link is like this --> <-- so I can see where the problems are and fix them by hand. It worked for the population bot above with 20+ articles needing attention. Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes please, that will help find any stragglers after the main run. ClickRick (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As the |static_image= parameter is deprecated will the bot be replacing those that are present but unused with empty new fields? Keith D (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. ClickRick (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was what I was hoping. Keith D (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Another bot image task (similar to Template:coord missing)

While we are doing this bot task would it be sensible to include a template similar to Template:Coord missing so we can flag all those articles needing static_image_alt to be completed? If so, I will volunteer to write that template. Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As I'm adding a blank field with just a comment to tell editors to look at WP:ALT, I can add anything else in there at the same time. If that happened to be a hidden link or a template which added a category then that's all just as easy from my perspective, and either would give us the advantage of being able to find them easily, though the template which added a category might be preferable. Let me know soon what you want in there as I've had approval for a trial run of the first 20 articles and hope to do that this evening. ClickRick (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. What I would like is to add {alttext missing|country|county}. I will then create all the categories (by country and by county) as per Template:coord missing. The hidden link is separate - it highlights those articles which are still using static_image, rather than having static_image_alt blank. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Another hidden category adder wouldn't be too hard to add, though. It would be able to classify by county and country, naturally, becuase you'v egot the parameters there in front of you. All you'd have to do is to decide which parameter(s), if not present, triggers it. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 08:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought of that but then it cannot be switched off. Certainly for missing coordinates there were a few articles that should not have coordinates e.g. a body corporate where the building needs coordinates but not the organisation. For the moment I would prefer a one off addition in the bot task; some coding could be added to the template later. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, switched off? Arguably, having it all centralised would make it easier to turn off, no? Oh, I must misunderstand. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 10:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

My fault, badly worded. It is very easy for us to add a hidden category (for all relevant articles) in the template code, and that would be switched off (for a particular article) by adding text to static_image_alt. However, if the editor decides that alt text is inappropriate for that article he cannot do anything about it as it is fixed in the template. That is the way missing coordinates works - the cat is added automatically, then editors either add the coordinates or remove the warning. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I'm with you now. Are there going to be many circumstances where even a little alt text is not required? - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 10:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I must concede that unlike coordinates I cannot think of circumstances where it would apply to alternate text, but I still feel safer doing it this way for the moment. We can always add the code later on - it is not a permanent decision. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:alttext missing is now working - see Category:England articles missing image alternate text for articles flagged so far (from missing coordinates list). I have reported it to WP:ALT and they have suggested something which is not place specific. Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The feedback from WP:ALT has been positive but they have suggested a rename to Template:Alt text missing which I have already requested. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes

I have some changes I think should be made. I think the soveign state section should be the first section in the information section above population. I also think it is backwards and completely against standard guidelines for all other countries on here. For instance the following

Council area : City of Aberdeen
Lieutenancy area: Aberdeen
Constituent country: Scotland
Sovereign state: United Kingdom

should be reordered like this:

Sovereign state: United Kingdom
Constituent country: Scotland
Lieutenancy area: Aberdeen
Council area: City of Aberdeen

Also is there a reason why the maps do not display in the centre of the template? It looks a lot tidier in the centre. On my computer it looks awkward and off line on the left. I would suggest strongly to set it at a 240 px limit so it doesn't go offline. Agreed? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re your first point, I think it is more conventional (even, perhaps universal) in the UK to read/write/display a location with the lowest tier first, leading up to the largest. It's not been discussed, but I imagine that's why the early developers used this approach.

Re your second point, could it be that the static image in the infobox of the article you are viewing is sized more than 240px? That usually knocks the map off centre. --Jza84 | Talk 09:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Could be. I would strongly suggest setting it to a 240px limit. OK can we at least move the sovereignty section so it is first above population? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No try Aberdeen. I evne tried to reduce th image size to 220 and it still is offline. ALso how about adding a label on the pin {PAGENAME} so it features the name of the settlement on the map. Also maybe reduce the size of the red dot by a few px for more accuracy? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose moving the sovereign state above population, it is counter intuitive. Jeni ^(talk) 12:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

counter intuitive? Are you saying that 99% of other places are also "counter intuitive". Looks like this template is guarded by those with a serious case of ~~WP:OWN~~(I don't like change). Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL you are accusing me of owning this template? That is actually one of the funniest accusations I've heard in a while! You may want to check how much involvement I (haven't) had in this template before making such accusations. Jeni ^(talk) 13:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Centering the map. This needs align=middle adding - I will add it with the changes about to take place with the current bot (re images update). I like the idea of adding the {PAGENAME} to the location map - can someone point me to a place it is already done, and I will then test it. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

OK I don't mean to accuse anybody or anything but I wouldn't describe my proposals as "counter intuitive". See Template:Infobox settlement and say for intance, Keflavik. I believe you just add a label= or caption= paramter to the template. I would reduce the size of the pin by a few pix and in the example shown too. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - the label looks easy to implement. However, you will have to be patient - we are in the middle of some major changes with a bot about to run. I will test it after the bot has run completly, about 7-14 days.Twiceuponatime (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added the label to Template:infobox UK feature - see the examples for that template. This looks non-contentious so I shall just add it to the next upgrade. I have also added {alttext missing} to that template which puts the articles without alt text into Category:Unclassified articles missing image alternate text. (I am assuming that the entering of this alt text is NOT our problem - we simply generate the lists for others to work on). Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the actual name of the town is supposed to appear on the map like Keflavik. You've added a label so that when you hover over the red dot the place name appears see Fishguard for example. We want the actual annotation to appear. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to have labels like this, but actually implementing it, through an automated template, is not going to be easy. For a start, the UK maps all use deep black boundary lines and any text superimposed over them will be illegible. So you'd first need to recolour all the maps to use much paler shades of grey. There is also a potential problem if the spot is close to the edge of the map; if the label is on the wrong side, it may run of the edge of the map. One solution is to put the labels on an opaque background, as I did here, but it looks a bit ugly. An example of a deliberately paler map can be found here, although even that isn't quite pale enough. --Dr Greg (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow the comment from Dr. Blofeld - on my browser (ie7) the text is next to the red dot like Keflavik. I agree with Dr Greg that text (and dots) on or near the boundary are poor but overall I think it is an improvement. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Must be my browser than, it works now because of Kirill's fine adjustment. P.S. as always a lot of trouble would be saved if everybody just used standard settlement infoboxes like everywhere else. Russia too. I don't buy the crap that these countries have individual requirement, I mean they do, it is just that is the whole point of having a standard template in that is it extremely versatile and you can use it for ANY settlement and is gives paramters which allow you to modify it. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Dr. Blofield wrote his comment above at 14:40, 10 August the implementation has changed to what he wanted (I think). For an example of text being lost on the right edge, see Wycoller --Dr Greg (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed that it went live overnight. Another case of odd-looking appearance when label crosses right-hand edge: see Abergavenny.

Reply to Dr. Blofeld's P.S. above - I think that using {{Infobox UK place}} is a lot easier than {{Infobox settlement}}. For the less-initiated user, seeing all those different parameters in the latter can be daunting, and the desirable information may be omitted in favour of the trivial; with the former, the parameters have intuitive names to hint at what is required. Further, with {{Infobox UK place}} there are a nice bunch of automated features like the emergency services that under {{Infobox settlement}} would have to be filled in manually. An OS grid ref (I love those) is easy with {{Infobox UK place}} where |os_grid_reference=SP066868 is all that is required, and the parameter name is a nice hint; with {{Infobox settlement}} it's possible, but much less obvious as well as being more cumbersome - here's a genuine example lifted verbatim from Birmingham:

|blank2_name =[[British national grid reference system|OS grid reference]]
|blank2_info ={{gbmappingsmall|SP066868}}

- who would guess at that? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note - the change was not applied to the sandbox version of the template. Keith D (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the name of the locality does not need to be added as a label within the map. It is pretty obvious what the point is referring to (given the name of the article and the automatic caption) and with so many transclusions of this template there are many incidences where the label is going to go over the edge of the map image or is otherwise obscured. MRSC (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Logically, you are right, but aesthetically, a labelled spot looks better than an unlabelled spot. I would say get rid of the name underneath the map so it just says "Shown within areaname". By the way I've raised a query at Template talk:Location map#Automatic position to see if there's an automated solution to off-the-map labels. --Dr Greg (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not just the positioning off the edge of the map, it is also the readability of the label. When it crosses the boundary lines on the map it makes it unreadable. Keith D (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Westminster shown within Greater London

Another option is to change the caption underneath to read like this. MRSC (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Pin map can be adjusted anyway to left, bottom, above alignment etc so it shouldn't be a problem. If you were to change the lable to default appear underneath or above you wouldn't get that problem. The problem though as Ketih said it unfortunately, especially the London map the background is very dark and the boundaries are often very dark too, especially on the Wales map. That is only because of the choice of map.... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that the labels get cut off the screen when they appear at the eastern extent of a map, e.g. Castleshaw. --Jza84 | Talk 20:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

On that subject, I've had an initial response to my query at Template talk:Location map#Automatic position. Others might like to express a view on that page as to whether it's worth going down that route or not. --Dr Greg (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added my support at Location map. They do have an option to allow users to select the position (|position = left or right or top or bottom or none – position of the label relative to the mark, defaults to right). It might be better in the long run to add an option label_position in this template so users can chose where it appears - there will be some cases when it needs to be above/below rather then left/right. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Having checked the code I see that {{{position}}} is already in, but with an invalid value. To give the user more choice can someone change (in two places)

|position=center

to

|position={{#if: {{{position|}}}|{{{position}}}|right}}

I will then update the documentation, and report back to Template:location map. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at doing this and spotted something so rather than update twice thought I would query. In the first instance, for the UK map, the {{{label}}} is not set should this be changed as follows -

|label=

to

|label={{{official_name}}}

Keith D (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If we do this, it would be better to use a more explicit parameter name like {{{map_label_position}}} rather than {{{position}}}. Having this option is better than nothing, but it relies on humans finding the problematic pages (there may well be hundreds) and fixing each one individually. And if we decide to use different maps in the future (e.g. more localised maps in Wales), then the label positions will be all wrong and need fixing again. If automated positioning can be made to work, that would be better. --Dr Greg (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

An automated solution is achievable. I've bitten the bullet and rewritten the {{Location map}} template. My experimental re-write is at Template:Location map/test/template (which calls another template at Template:Location map/test/subtemplate) and includes a self-test in its "noinclude" section. I'd welcome a critical examination by any template-programmers reading this. (Comment at Template talk:Location map#Automatic position.) --Dr Greg (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

An automated solution is always(?) going to find the ones that drop off the edge of a map, but we are also going to need to fine-tune some articles where the label clashes with the map boundary, or with a water feature. BTW I used {{{position}}} to be consisent with Template:location map - {{{map_label_position}}} is better. Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added another map at Template:Location map/test/template. When the label is set to top and the title takes two lines it obliterates the red dot. The white panel is also cropping drop down letters e.g. g. But otherwise I am happy with it - it is going to work for the majority of articles and users can always adjust the label to suit that article. Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the problems with multi-line labels are already problems with the currently installed version and beyond my limited knowledge to fix. (My version is little more than a cut-and-paste job of the current version, just split across two templates instead of one.) These problems occur only with an opaque background (although with a transparent background you may get text on top of the red spot!). I've changed the example to illustrate use of a yellow background that would look better for most UK maps. Scotland doesn't have the problem of black borders, so transparent labels look best for those maps.

Opaque labels could be implemented in this template now, if there's consensus to do so. But do it only for those maps that have dark borders, leave Scotland and any other maps like that transparent. Automatic left/right positioning of labels will have to wait until there is agreement to update the {{Location map}} template with my proposed fix. I'm concerned my fix might have errors (e.g. if some bracket got lost in the copying & pasting) and I'd suggest it needs a good test, side-by-side with the current version, to check all the parameters behave correctly. -- Dr Greg talk 14:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Latest news: User:Zocky has put a lot of effort into producing a new version of {{Location map}} that implements automatic label positioning. It hasn't yet been released but a pre-release version is available at Template:Location map/Sandbox where it is also documented. Zocky's own description with examples of its use is at Template talk:Location map#New template version - do we want it?. Please help by reviewing what he's done and providing constructive feedback. -- Dr Greg talk 18:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Community in Wales II

Now that |community_wales has successfully been added to the live template, and users other than myself are now adding this parameter to the infobox in articles (see Betws Garmon, Lisvane, Menai Bridge and others), does anybody mind if I add it to Template:Infobox UK place/doc also to Template:Infobox UK place/doc/examples? These don't appear to be protected, so I believe that I have the right to make the documentation agree with the template.

Regarding Template:Infobox UK place/doc I would also like to move |civil_parish and |civil_parish1 to the ENGLAND-SPECIFIC section. Any objections? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and add the new parameter to the documentation. On the second point, it appears to be used in Scotland according to the examples so may not be appropriate to move. Keith D (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Done paragraph 1, not done 2. Also added |constituency_welsh_assembly and |welsh_name to the examples. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Internal Drainage Boards

Low-lying parts of the UK pay drainage rates to a variety of IDB. See [6] for examples.

I believe that the infobox should include fields to allow these to be referenced. How would one go about that? Brunnian (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Since, according to IDB, "The area of an IDB is not determined by county or metropolitan council boundaries, but by water catchment areas within a given region", automatic display/population of this field would not be possible (the way that the emergency services etc. are done); it would require manual input. We also don't have any spare/undesignated fields (compare {{Infobox settlement}}, specifically fields named like |blank_name and |blank_info) which could be used, so a new field would need to be created in this template. See Community in Wales earlier (13 July 2009). But if the IDB is important, perhaps the level above it (the water company, ie Thames, Severn-Trent) is also relevant? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically it is trivial to add, although as mentioned above it would have to be manually input data. But is it relevant? If we add drainage/sewerage then logically we have to add all the services (water, electricity, gas, telephone, cable ...). Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

IDBs are more like local councils - their income is collected along with the council tax. They are nothing to do with sewage, being the remnants of the companies of adventurers who drained the marshlands. They have no connection with the water companies either. They are not privately owned utilities. Brunnian (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure they are suitable for inclusion in the template. Probably as notable as an NHS Trust AFAICT. Perhaps this ought to be mentioned in the prose (and thus, WP:UKCITIES needs an update?), but it is my strong view that this is not notable enough, and doesn't add enough value to the template. --Jza84 | Talk 23:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I've certainly been putting them on pages: [Pode_Hole], [Dyke,_Lincolnshire], [Twenty,_Lincolnshire] for example.Brunnian (talk) 09:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

They may not be relevant to those of us in Greater Manchester, but I think they assume a totally different level of importance over in the Fens. Perhaps a request for comments on any Wikiprojects in that area might be a good idea. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Locating this template

Infobox uk places does not seem to be categorised under Help:Infobox. I got here by modifying a url to point to template:infobox_uk_place but would have thought there would be a better way to get here via indexes or searches. is there some categorisation missing?

Wierdly too 'special pages' from the toolbox has entries for bad templates, but not good ones. Brunnian (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It is in a category, but in a rather specific sub-category rather than a top-level one. The problem is that there are so many (possibly too many, but that's POV) Infobox templates, that to put them all into one category would mean that you would't be able to see the wood for the trees. So, there are sub-categories; and within those, sub-sub-categories, etc. Since Help:Infobox is more of a general guide to constructing a new infobox, rather than using an existing infobox, you have to drill down a bit. Near the top you will see:

For a list of infoboxes, see Category:Infobox templates.

Go there, and under Subcategories, G you will see: Category:Geography and place infobox templates; under Subcategories, G (again) is: Category:Geography infobox templates, and in there, under Pages in category "Geography infobox templates", U, is: Template:Infobox UK place --Redrose64 (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Template Location_map_Cambridgeshire

I'm a bit concerned that Template:Location_map_Cambridgeshire might not be right.

Take a look at the infobox for Maxey. The location given is (just) within the boundary, but it is plotted outside. The co-ordinates make sense. I've tested the rectangular bounds as defined for Location_map_Cambridgeshire work, and position the dot on the corers. so I suspect that the bounds, or the graphic scaling, may be wrong.

The county boundary on Deeping bridge is at Grid ref: TF138095 Lat: 52:40:17N (52.67146) Lon: 0:19:06W (-0.31834) but if you stick that in it is plotted well north of the boundary on Location_map_Cambridgeshire

Can someone cleverer than me have a look? Brunnian (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's very possible it's a graphical error that needs correcting. I made the map but struggled with the source material I had to hand. --Jza84 | Talk 22:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

COORD format

the COORD template can take a format specifier, such as format=dms. decimal degrees are not commonly used in the UK, so would it be possible to inlcude the format change in the COORD part of the template?--Brunnian (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not think we should be forcing a change in the output for specific articles. The output should be kept the same for all articles which is the default. If you want specific output then this can be achieved by use of code in your own startup files such as monobook.js. Keith D (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Keith on this one. Jeni ^(talk) 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

decimal degrees are not commonly used in the UK' Cite? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility improvement for map

{{editprotected}}

For WP:ACCESSIBILITY by visually impaired and other readers who cannot see the images, this template should let the caller specify the alt text for the map that it generates. Currently it generates generic and not-that-helpful alt text such as "Monmouth is located in Wales2". The caller should be able to override this so that it says something like "Monmouth is a bit north of Wales's southeast corner, on the border." To do this, I've added support for a new |map_alt= parameter; please install the sandbox patch that implements this. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Postcode area mandatory

If I omit the postcode_area then the postcode district does not appear on the page. Is this a bug or a feature? Jan1nad (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The 2 fields work together the area field provides the link to the appropriate article and the district the displayed value. So you have to have both of them for the output to be correct. Keith D (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Jan1nad (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor tweak

Requesting sync with sandbox for a minor edit to allow for the infobox title to be inherited from the page title if omitted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ehm, that is not a minor tweak. Perhaps the sandbox was not in sync when you started ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks horrible in the diffs, but that's just because I stripped the code of tab characters. There shouldn't be any change in output beyond the one specified in my previous comment. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose this request. What has been removed is all the section headings and indents. That is going to make the maintainence of this template more difficult. Also the change is not complete - there are four further changes to be made. I have this on my list of jobs to do, and will be done when the bot (still in progress) is complete (re alt text for images). Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Updates required

I can't edit this template, so can someone update the following links:

Thanks! MRSC (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Done and tested; please let me know if there are any problems. Kbthompson (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Works fine. MRSC (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

We need to add the change to the sandbox version, but need to resolve the Minor Tweak change above that was not implemented by either rolling back the sandbox or implementing it. Keith D (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor tweak update

{{editprotected}} The template has been updated with the following (new code in sandbox), and sample at Template:Infobox UK place/testcases#Trivia update:

official_name now defaults to {PAGENAME} (*)

align=middle added to map to fix map alignment problem

force underline after OS Grid when capital_distance NOT present (corrects my mistake in an earlier tidy up)

map caption is now prefixed with a red dot

red dot label can now be positioned (top/bottom/left/right), defaults to right (*)

<capital>_direction added to match charingX_direction (*)

(*) not in documentation yet

Not done – these points have been raised but no consensus

red dot on map left at 9px

image caption left asis i.e. NOT caption

Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy of my comment from 12 August above as the query is still not applied here though the label positioning code is.

In the first instance, for the UK map, the {{{label}}} is not set should this be changed as follows -
|label=
to
|label={{{official_name}}}

Though probably following the changes you have just made it should now be changed to

|label={{#if: {{{official_name|}}}|{{{official_name}}}|{{PAGENAME}} }}

Keith D (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not done for now; it's not clear which of all the above changes are requested, nor which have consensus. Please discuss amongst yourselves, come to an agreement and update the sandbox accordingly before requesting the edit. Skomorokh, barbarian 08:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Bug fixes

I have added the extra requested by Keith D. The map was working for England (the testcase) but not for UK. I have also commented out capital_direction - I copied the code for charingX which includes a bug (which I have left in charingX).

The new code is in the sandbox. It includes the changes listed at the beginning of this section, which have been discussed. It does not include the items marked as 'not done' as there is no consensus as yet. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, please check if this is what you had in mind. Regards, Skomorokh, barbarian 08:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We now have the red pog added underneath the map as a legend with the name of the locality. Do we also need the locality name attached to the pog on the map itself?. I though the reason for adding the red pog below was so we could remove the name from the map (ending overlap problems). MRSC (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The overlap problem was solved by adding label_position. I thought the red pog was a seperate request. It is simple to change - does anyone have any strong views on it? Aberdeen looks fine, but as you suggest the duplication may be overkill. Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No distance or direction may draw extra line

If none of the distance or direction fields are populated, but either |civil_parish= or |community_wales= is populated, the section that would contain the former does not need to be ruled off because the presence of the latter places a rule above them. However, the edit today has this extra code:

<!-- force line at end of box --><tr class=mergedbottomprow><td></td><td></td>

as a result of which an unnecessary rule-off occurs, which I think is a bug. For examples where this occurs, see Barford St. Michael, Brechfa, Carmarthen or Kidlington, where two lines are drawn between the "OS grid reference" and the "Parish" or "Community" rows. By contrast, Bloxham and Llanelli look fine because |civil_parish= and |community_wales= are unpopulated.

It's difficult to find examples of articles which do have the distances populated, mainly because if you put "london_distance" into the search box, the underscore is ignored and it thinks that you want to look for two separate words; and there are an awful lot of matching articles by that criterion. The only one I've found so far is Aberdeen which looks horrible - the Edinburgh distance is in the same sub-box as the OS grid ref; but there is then a rule before the London distance. That one, as well as Blyth, Northumberland I'm at a loss to explain. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The gap between the ruled line and the district looks larger than normal, this is probably part of the same problem. MRSC (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for providing those examples - I will look at it this weekend. There is no problem if all sections have entries, the problems only arise when some are absent. Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Bug fixed

The new code is in sandbox. The fault with the underlining was mine – I tidied up the capital_distance block and did not pay proper attention to what I was doing. I have also fixed the capital_direction bug - the charingX bug was introduced by someone else and I propagated it by copying that block. I will now update the documentation. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Done on faith, please check that this is correct and stick up another {{editrequested}} if anything needs changing. Skomorokh, barbarian 09:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)