Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 4

message: As many UK places are twinned with other worldwide destinations, how about an optional "Twinned With" field, that links to the Wikipedia page for the twin town(s)? Mittfh 16:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good idea. Any other views? –MDCollins (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It is almost always the local government district or other authority, not the locality that is twinned. MRSC • Talk 09:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No its not. There's a huge bureaucracy out there involved in twinning towns and villages across the country. Unfortunately there is no real way to verify such information if it is added unless it is listed on a town/borough/village website Frelke 06:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing a quick web search for some towns I know are twinned reveals three possible sources: local government website, local newspaper archives, and possibly the website of the twinning association. After reading No original research, a photograph of a town entrance/gateway sign mentioning "Twinned With Town X, Country Y" might also count. Evidently, the links would have to be manually applied, as unlike the coordinates / postcode / phone code, there is no unified/central source applicable to all towns. In the light of this, it's probably best to wait for more requests for this feature, and feedback on its feasability, before deciding whether to add it to the template. Mittfh 16:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twinning 

message: About a month ago the Infobox England place was replaced by this standardised UK one on Askam and Ireleth, is it possible to add a traditional/historic county field which we used to fill with '|Traditional= Lancashire(North of the Sands)', as it was useful to point out the difference of old/current administrative county and to avoid 'Real Lancashire' debates? Kijog 15:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an overwhelming consensus formed not to include the former counties in the infobox. The full debate is listed in the archives. Jhamez84 00:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As and when the right time comes to review the debate, I would be in favour of adding traditional/historic county fields (at least for English places). Greenshed 23:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  traditional historic counties 

message: There are significant boundary changes that have been announced but do not come into effect until the next general election. I've noticed the odd article where this has been updated to show "old" and "new" using the existing fields, but not in a consistent manner. Is there any desire to provide a more robust solution or direction for this? MRSC • Talk 15:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My personal opinion is that we shouldn't show them until there is a Parliamentary prorogation but that seems to be a minority view.  Should we add a future constituency field?  The problem is that we are making the infobox larger and larger again, which was one of the original purposes of this infobox. Regan123 19:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Westminster constituencies 

message: Can something be done about the ugliness of the top of these templates. Particularly in Scottish places, where often two languages follow below the main article name, it looks terribly cluttered and the main name indistinct. Enlarging the main name, or introducing more space between it and the Gaelic and Lowland Scots names, might help, but I ask someone with more knowledge of this overly-complicated template to try and implement this. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks fine to me. MRSC • Talk 20:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seriously? Look at the Edinburgh page and tell me that doesn't look ugly and cluttered? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks quite acceptable to me, too.  The top lines could do with a bit more leading/line-spacing, perhaps, but they're quite readable on screen.  Are you using an unusual browser? — mholland (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Firefox, latest edition. On the edinburgh example, Edinburgh is on top with no space of Dùn Èideann, and Dùn Èideann covers the top quarter of the Lowland Scots names below. Moreover, the alternative names, being bolded as hyperlinks appear more prominent than the name at the top. It's very ugly on my browser indeed. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm using Firefox, latest edition, on Linux. I agree with mholland that, although a small bit of leading or line-spacing could be beneficial, it is not as cluttered as Deacon of Pndapetzim  is describing is his view of it. Along with a screen shot, may be you could give us an idea of what fonts you are using, what then defaults and sizes are, and whether you are allowing sites to set their own font details (its in the preferences section of the preferences in my setup).  DDStretch  (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having the names in other languages link to the language article is silly the old infobox was better as it included the other languages in small and had the language article in brackets --Barryob   Vigeur de dessus  17:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't read it.  Using Firefox on Windows 194.66.84.43 08:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can read it using Firefox 2.0.0.3 and OSX but it is still ugly - 8 separate names with no immediate indication of why! A rather jumbled outcome of an inadequate template design (which would ideally indicate the language involved) and user silliness I fear. 4 Scots versions is well OTT. Ben MacDui (Talk) 15:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with putting the language in small before (or after) to identify which is which. Regan123 18:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added language identifiers so that it is clear which language is being shown. Regan123 18:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work -  the guilty parties are now more obvious. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ugly template

message: I have completed the conversion of those templates now, bar one which has been reverted twice.  I have therefore requested deletion. Regan123 01:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On which ones as when I compared them to the previous static ones they seemed quite similar.  I may have transposed the longitude / latitude incorrectly on a couple which would show the dot in the wrong place as well.  Point out the problematic ones and then I will look at them. Regan123 09:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Portree, Burghead are examples. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Burghead is too far north, but what is the issue with Portree.  Could you also check out a couple more in the south / west so that we can  see where the problem lies? Regan123 10:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Portree lies on the south eastern side of the Trotternish peninsula, not in Vaternish. It has been displaced to the north and the west by about 10 miles. Brodick is displaced to the north by a similar margin. Lamlash is displaced north by a lesser amount. Incidentally, these are the first four places I looked at. Inverness is displaced west.  Kirkwall is wrong too - slightly north and west - that's six out of six. Hopefully some are correct! Ben MacDui (Talk) 11:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have changed the map values on North. Do you think Burghead is now in the right place north/south wise? Pressing edit forces a proper reload of the map... I will start working on east/west. Regan123 11:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right I think Portree is now in the right place, can you confirm? Regan123 11:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Inverness is also back where it should be I believe. Regan123 11:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. They all seem to be where they should be give or take a little bit.  Do people agree? Regan123 11:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Portree and Inverness look OK - Burghead seems to be in the sea to my eye. Ben MacDui (Talk) 15:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not find this wholesale change very helpful. By the time I was aware of the change, it had already happened, and since the old Scottish Template had been deleted, I could not carry out a critical comparison with the previous version. As a occaisional editor of scottish places articles, the removal of certain information (specifically Historical Counties) saddens me. However those responsible for the UK template have deemed it appropriate to delete the Scottish Template without even highlighting the impending deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland. I will reluctantly live with this change. --Stewart 14:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stewart a notification [was published] and there was a full TfD happened at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 18/Template:Infobox England place which was also put on the noticeboard.Regan123 18:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reagan, the noticeboard was not informed of the deletion vote until I happened to stumble across it (going on quietly, advertised only to those who were thought likely to vote in its favor) and then informed it (see HERE).   I made this point before, and was told something along the lines of we're under no obligation to inform Scottish wikipedians. Fair enough I suppose, but let's not change history. If that weren't bad enough though, for those of you who actually think it's bad, one of the proposal's proponents went and moved the vote page, cutting the edit history and breaking all links to the page, once again ensuring the proponents had an unfair advantage. I should note, though, that after half an hour of investigation, I found that said user had just pasted the text, and had not interfered with any votes. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Peterhead has joined the oil rigs in the middle of the North Sea --Bill Reid | Talk 14:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a puzzle as the rest seem fine.  I will look into this, this evening. Regan123 18:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Reagan, can you please fix Scone; you've messed it up and put it at Fort Augustus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Had to delete the infobox; please restore it when you fix the map. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have entered correct coordinates from streetmap.co.uk which seem to have now put it in the right place.  Can you confirm? Regan123 18:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No problem.  Some of the coords were obviously wrong, so it is worth checking those first. PS Name is Regan, not Reagan :-) Regan123 19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: From memory I believe there was a problem with the actual image of Scotland; it was warped/twisted someway that calibration is impossible. Jhamez84 17:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it work by putting the same map onto a new document or adjusting the map width parameter in this template? Regan123 18:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would only work if a new, true flat map of Scotland was created - though I know this is a popular map, so it's a case of swings and roundabouts I think here. Jhamez84 16:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the map still isn't working.  Suggest that someone who knows any solution bring this up at Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board to get some sort of agreement on a map.  This having coastal locations either moved inland or out into the sea isn't on. --19:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scotland 

message: The infobox image caption at the article Blyth, Northumberland seems to have jumped to the left of the image.  It's only gone like that today, and the article hasn't been edited for a few days, so I don't think there's a problem with the page itself.  Also, Newcastle upon Tyne appears to use the same infobox, but doesn't have this problem.  If somebody who knows about these things could help sort this out, it'd be appreciated.  Cheers. Dbam Talk/Contributions 16:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK, the problem seems to be fixed now. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an OS coordinate display issue as well.  They seemed to be linked. Regan123 19:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Static image caption problem 

message: On the OS map reference field on the infobox, a while ago when you clicked on it it took you to the same website as if you clicked on the grid reference, (like this) which was quite usefull as you could look up maps of the location.
Now it seems to have changed and takes you to some utterly useless website  which I cant make head or tale of. Why has this been done, and could it be changed back to the far more useful situation that existed before? G-Man * 19:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should only get to see the "utterly useless website" if you supply an odd number of digits in the grid ref (which is an invalid grid ref). (And the message on the website explains this, perhaps not as clearly as it could.) Supply an even number and it works properly. --Dr Greg 17:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OS map references

message: The "Constituent country" link  points out to List of countries. However, England, Wales... are not listed in this page as countries. Could someone look into it? CG 15:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've provisionally changed the link to the Constituent country article. Jhamez84 00:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country 

message: Hi, we've struggled with making "red dot-on" maps for U.S. cities and towns but there are so many that the editors formerly doing this have given up with the remaining few thousand towns. I see that the code you're using automatically puts the dot on the map according to the coordinates placed in the box. Is there a way we could adapt this to U.S. state maps? Would whoever is knowledgeable about this please write to my user page? Many thanks,  Badagnani 19:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This template just calls :Template:Location map that does all the clever map stuff.  A number of sub-templates are used.  These are just defined by having a map and marking the longitude/latitude of the extremities see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Location_map_Greater_Manchester&action=edit as an exmaple. Pit-yacker 19:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about map 

message: Re "Vale of White Horse and Hart districts only: ambulance_service (needs to be populated)" -- there's no indication of why this is required for these two districts, but Vale of White Horse has been covered by one ambulance service (South Central) since 2006. (See http://www.southcentralambulance.nhs.uk/ for details.) Janetmck 20:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 1#Ambulance update which explains the slightly odd split.  If this has changed, then great and we can automate it now!  Regan123 16:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Ambulance Services anomaly 

message: Having filled in a lot of map_type parameters, it's occurred to me that this field duplicates information already present elsewhere in the infobox.  We could use the existing information to display a map, in the same manner as the police, fire and ambulance fields are displayed.  We should keep the field so that "nomap" can be used, but in all cases where a map is required, we could find the appropriate national or county map automatically, or otherwise use the default UK map.  Are there any objections to this idea? Warofdreams talk 17:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have suggested this in the past also, and would very much welcome the idea. Jza84 17:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've been bold and implemented this.  Maps are now generated using only the country, metropolitan_county, shire_county and unitary_england fields.  I've conducted various tests, but please fix (or tell me to fix) any errors introduced.  For the time being, "nomap" has no effect; this can be reintroduced soon. Warofdreams talk 03:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi, You seem to have created a problem with Greater London (possibly others) in that for the map to generate, Greater London must be wikilinked. Most of the articles have this unlinked (e.g. Queen's Park), which may have been an oversight when the template was transcluded, so now no map displays at all. I've tried to fix this, for example in Harlesden, but this has now duplicated the services fields. Not sure if this problem was there before, but can you take a look? –MDCollins (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for letting me know.  I've now fixed this problem, and all maps for places in Greater London should display correctly. Warofdreams talk 14:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, is the plan to remove the user set maps/tag to ensure the correct map is auto generated? That way we can ensure they are generated correctly. What you have implemented currently hasn't changed many due to the user-set map overriding the function. That make sense? –MDCollins (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should probably eventually remove this, as they no longer have an effect (although, as I say, I plan to re-implement the "nomap" option for it).  So the reason not many maps have changed is because the "map_type" was appropriate and the new automation is largely working correctly.  Where it should come in useful is when new maps are created; one line added to the template can implement them, rather than having to add a field to the infobox of every place in the area. Warofdreams talk 14:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great to me so far, and think this is a real asset and strength of this infobox... however, I know you're still working on it, but wanted to let you know Saddleworth has some problems with the |no_map= functionality (you may be able to use it as a guide if your edits are working properly), and we may also have problems where a settlement is split along a county boundary (such as Ramsbottom - though that particular article seems to still function properly somehow!). I must thank you for your efforts though; I welcome any automation of this infobox. Jza84 14:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the example.  "nomap" functionality is now working.  I've also added a "UK" option for map_type, which will always display the default UK map. Warofdreams talk 15:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Mow Cop may be a useful addition to the test cases: it is split at civil parish, district, county, and region level, and at the moment, shows no county map at all, when it did, quite well, before.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Mow Cop was in what I hope is a unique position of having a map_type set which isn't generated by one of the fields listed above (it was in shire_county3).  It would have worked if we had a default map for Staffordshire, or if there was no map_type set.  I've fixed this case by swapping the order of the counties, so that Cheshire now occupies the shire_county field. Warofdreams talk 14:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks. It straddles the border in such a way that either map would have been acceptable, though I guess it may have sparked controversy with some people who think of it as being mostly in one or the other county. Thankfully, we haven't had many of them around so far. I've also now tweaked the coords a bit to make the red dot straddle the border more (it is now placed more centrally in the village, though now not exactly on the border-line, such are the feasible limits to calibration of maps.) I also made the order of the regions correspond to the order in which the counties and districts are given.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you have a look at Hemingbrough which now gives the text 'nomap' in place of the UK map? Keith D 14:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it now correct?  It looks fine to me; I think this was a very temporary effect caused by me botching an attempt to reintroduce the "nomap" option. Warofdreams talk 14:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for quick response. Keith D 14:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, on limited checking, [[Widnes] (same unitary authority as Runcorn) now also doesn't have the Cheshire map shown, whereas it did before. Same goes for Lymm (in a different unitary authority, but still in Cheshire ceremonial county). I haven't checked other places within unitary authorities within Cheshire, but it may well be that all have reverted to the old map, even though map_type is set to Cheshire, and removing the map_type field may still not work for them (as in the case of Runcorn).  DDStretch  (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed that some editing has been done so that unsupported map_types cause the default UK map to be shown. I wonder if these cases I've outlined above have fallen into that category somehow? If so, I hope that there is some way to reverse them. When the Cheshire map was drawn, it was accepted that it would contain the unitary authorities within the ceremonial county of Cheshire, and editors felt the Cheshire map was a great improvement for those articles.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's why they've fallen in to that category.  It will definitely be possible to reverse the change, and thanks for finding it.  The problem is that instead of placing Cheshire in the shire_county field, they have it in the |lieutenancy_england field - something which I hadn't considered.  It's a bit frustrating that the relevant information is distributed between so many different fields.  I've made a temporary fix, but for other unitary authorities in the same position, I'll have to do some further work. Warofdreams talk 16:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that work. Is there any way in which those entries could be made more consistent with other uses of the infobox whilst keeping the information the same, so as not to make this situation need a special fix? It would help keep the coding more clean and more easy to understand. Sorry, I'm not much help at coding this stuff which I think is a bit too esoteric for me at the moment.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as I mentioned in reply to Regan below, I've now standardised it so that all unitary authorities work correctly. Warofdreams talk 14:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe it is worth using the same code as for the Police, Fire & Ambulance and putting it on a sub page as this makes it easy to update. Regan123 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my thought, too, and while it's a little more complex as more values need to be passed, it is now working.  The relevant sub-page is . Warofdreams talk 01:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: How did you achieve this?  I'd be very interested; as you say, the template is becoming increasingly unwieldy, but I couldn't see a way around the transclusions. Warofdreams talk 14:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC I used something along the lines of replacing the relevant Location map call in each case clause of the switch to {{Location map .... For example, that meant if map_type= Greater Manchester then only Location map Greater Manchester would be explicity mentioned in the template. However, for some reason this didnt when map_type was included but unassigned.Pit-yacker 10:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a line to say Nottingham's map isn't functioning - probably because its a unitary authority that's been overlooked. Jza84 12:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with Nottingham was that it lies in a unitary authority but didn't contain the unitary_england field.  I've added it in, and it now works. Warofdreams talk 12:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the subject of Nottingham, why is that weird addition to the name just above the map being tolerated? The link seems to suggest it is the Anglo Saxon name of the town (though I thought it would be closer to "Snottingham", which is what a slightly more recent version of the name was), but placing it there gives it a prominence that is just too much and it also suggests it is an alternative name in common use by some groups today, which I strongly suspect it isn't.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to have been added by User:Jrockley at 21:00, June 12, 2007 when there was a change from the old unitary authority-type infobox to the new UK settlement box, and I'm not sure that for a unitary authority, that is a standard thing to do. What do others think?  DDStretch  (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not seen any other unitary authorities which have been changed to use this infobox.  There's an argument to be made for doing so, but it seems rather odd to just have one in this position. Warofdreams talk 14:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll put the old one back in and see what happens. In any case, I think the Anglo Saxon idiosyncracy should go.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automating map_type 

message: Hi,
I've noticed that the coordinates that display at the very top of the article seemed to have shifted up so that they are unclear underneath the article title. Is this my browser or a common problem?
Also when using this infobox do we need to include any other form of  template? Many articles have them at the bottom - for other purposes? - and duplicating them will duplicate the coords at the top of the page. Is it safe to just remove these? It's been so long since I've added this template that I've forgotten.
Just decided to convert some of GBThumb! 
–MDCollins (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem comes because :Template:Coord is now used rather than :Template:Coor.    It seems to be a problem with coord generally and not just on this template.  This issue should probably be addressed to the creators of that template.  The co-ordinates on the template are also used to generate the map so if they are removed you will lose the map. Pit-yacker 23:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates 

message: This infobox appears to be maturing, and rollout and bug-fixes seem to be going well. Can I therefore bring to the attention of editors the urgent need for a standard(ised) Template:Infobox UK district.
This infobox exists to cover settlements within districts/boroughs/unitary authorities. However, the local government districts have no infobox, and instead use tables pretending to be infoboxes pasted directly into articles, and inconsistently at that (compare the very pink North Somerset with Sheffield and Liverpool (which was recently changed to a generic infobox, but has some ordering and formatting problems).
Are there any budding infoboxers interested in earning a very large barnstar, and the UK geography editting community's un-dying respect and try and formulate a prototype or a first step??? Jza84 23:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Local Government District infobox 

message: For the fields of population density and distances there are a few different conversion templates that can be used.  They will not only make it easier to convert from imperial to metric but they will also format the data as well.  Here are some examples converting from imperial to metric:
Population density:
--> 
Distances convert miles to km:</br>
-->
:or when abbreviated: 
-->
For more information see:  and 
Regards, MJCdetroit 13:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good! Thanks for this. I presume we should use the formatting "500/sqkm" rather than "500 per sqkm" in the infobox for consistency across the transclusions? Jza84 13:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conversion Templates that can be used within the infobox 

message: Any budding calibrators able to bring :Image:Somerset outline map with UK.png to life? Jza84 00:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've got it pretty much aligned.  I've also added it to the infobox. Warofdreams talk 01:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Jza84 10:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somerset 

message: This template seems to be injecting a lot of whitespace into the tops of articles, eg Eastleigh. Might be worth someone who knows what they're doing with templates taking a look at it... Martocticvs 22:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had similar issues.  The template can output a few html line breaks  if some params are missing.  I expect there's some excess whitespace in the template (although I don't feel bold enough to go experimenting).  For example, adding the OS grid ref to Eastleigh has removed two of the offending carriage returns there. — mholland (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same problem crops up if the population parameter is present, but has no content, ie, just "population=". --Malleus Fatuarum 13:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Having taken a look at the template, I'm wondering whether the problem might be in the CSS, and not in the template itself, in class "mergedrow" for instance, but I don't know where to find the CSS to check. --Malleus Fatuarum 15:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem at the articles you have listed is distinct from the problem given above.  Banbury, for example, is fine (and validates perfectly), but may suffer from a rendering problem in Internet Explorer. The same problem will occur on the pages you have listed, and on all pages where there is a right-floated image placed directly after the infobox (actually, as you've discovered, it ought only to affect boxes where the coords are present, but for practical purposes that's all of them).  A solution is to move the image.  I have done this for Banbury, which now renders correctly in IE. — mholland (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's done it for Banbury, but there must still be hundreds of other articles with the same problem. It may be the fault because of a conflict between the template and IE, but seeing as the vast majority of Wikipedia users are using IE........ the fault lies in the design of the template. It's no use saying that Banbury was "fine" and "validates perfectly" if the result is not fine in IE. If the solution is so simple as to not have an image directly after the template, this ought to be made clear to anyone intending to use it. How many other articles are similarly compromised?  Emeraude 19:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what you're saying, but there do seem to be at least two separate problems with this template. The injection of white space when parameters are missing or values aren't specified for them, and the IE problem that tripped you up earlier today. They can both be worked around though, more or less satisfactorily, but the documentation ought to be clear about the known problems and the workarounds, until the problems are fixed. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What about if you make sure that the  so it's on the same line as, and flush against, the {{ of the next statement?  Commenting out the line break ought to solve the problem. Does it? — mholland (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Great, the whitespace has gone! Warofdreams talk 01:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitespace 

message: Hey this template (infobox UK place) is causing problems with the world heritage template (see Bath, Somerset) as an example. It needs sorting. See Yellowstone National Park for how other Infoboxes work with the World Heritage template. --TFoxton 23:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is lies within the World Heritage Site infobox, not this one. Jza84 18:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using this template with [[Template:Infobox_World_Heritage_Site]] 

message: Hi there,
i was looking at the Burgess Hill article, and it seems that the ambulance service is wrong.  South East Coast Ambulance cover this area (not South Central as given), which suggests that there might be a bug in the automatic call function.
Can anyone advise how this is fixed?  For a full list of the correct areas see Emergency medical services in the United Kingdom. 
Regards Owain.davies 06:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Ambulance Services 

message: Hello UK place team, 
Are there any budding calibrators willing to bring the new Gloucestershire county map to life for the infobox? Given alot of Gloucestershire places are in the news due to the flooding, I think this map will aid in bringing articles like Tewkesbury etc upto scratch sooner rather than later. Jza84 20:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've got it pretty much calibrated.  Warofdreams talk 13:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I think that's working now.  Keep up the good work, Warofdreams talk 20:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: These appear to be working correctly now. Pit-yacker 15:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! These are pointing perfectly!... We have the comment for Rutland still saying "X shown within the United Kingdom" rather than "X shown within Rutland" - I'm sure it can easily be fixed. Thanks again though!... only 20 more counties to go! Jza84 16:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just completed a new Warwickshire map, anybody able to set this one up too? Hope so! Jza84 02:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to be working Pit-yacker 02:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Gloucestershire map 

message: Hello again,
Are there any budding calibrators willing to bring the new Hampshire county map to life for the infobox? Jza84 14:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think that's working now.  Keep up the good work, Warofdreams talk 20:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Hampshire map (not [[New Hampshire]]!)

message: Hello yet again!
I've managed to draw up a new North Yorkshire county map. Anybody willing to amalgamate into the infobox? Jza84 02:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New North Yorks map

message: I've been working flat out (between edits!) to create two more maps. I'm aiming to get the whole of England mapped asap!
I have a new Rutland map and a new Cumbria map. Anybody able and willing to calibrate these two? Hope so! Jza84 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These appear to be working correctly now. Pit-yacker 15:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! These are pointing perfectly!... We have the comment for Rutland still saying "X shown within the United Kingdom" rather than "X shown within Rutland" - I'm sure it can easily be fixed. Thanks again though!... only 20 more counties to go! Jza84 16:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just completed a new Warwickshire map, anybody able to set this one up too? Hope so! Jza84 02:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Appears to be working Pit-yacker 02:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet more maps

message: OK with the documentation's reappearance since when i last looked, i want to correct Walderslade, which I've bodged so far. Its mainly in Medway (thus "unitary_england" and "lieutenancy_england = Kent ") but is *also* in Kent (as in "shire_district=" and "shire_county = Kent"). To slightly complicate things further its has two "shire_district"s ( Tonbridge and Malling and Maidstone (borough)). Any pointers / help in the right direction about how to implement this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance and some cracking work. Pickle 03:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've fixed this. For multiple shire districts, one can use "shire_district=" then "shire_district1=", others can be listed within shire_district1= using the  tool. I also applied WP:UKCITIES to that article! Hope that helps, Jza84 13:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help on that, greatly appreciated! Pickle 18:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Division splits