Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 1

message: Some working examples using this template can be found here. MRSC • Talk 21:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Oldham and Stretford versions (using new Greater Manchester map) are no longer working. I've tried my best, but the co-ordinate settings need recalibrating. I'm struggling myself. Jhamez84 23:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you left boundary longitude was a bit out.  Based on Wigan having a latitude of -2.65ish, I'd estimate the left boundary of the image to be around -2.7 .  I've changed the location mapping accordingly and it has produced much more accurate results.  DJR (T) 01:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much more accurate thanks. Though still out a little - I think the right boundary needs a tweak the most as Oldham is still showing too far east (and a little too southerly). I'll try to work out what the boundaries are tomorrow if no one else can; looks like a little trial an error is going to be the only way mind! Jhamez84 02:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working examples

message: I'm fairly sure the code is correct for the dynamic Manchester location map, but I can seem to get a dot to appear.  My efforts at User:Djr_xi/Stretford produce a map of Greater Manchester, but fail to locate Stretford within.  Any ideas?  DJR (T) 22:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks fine. Is the width right? MRSC • Talk 22:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah the appearance of the map is fine...the problem is getting the marking dot to appear!  DJR (T) 22:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very odd. I pulled it out of the template and the syntax worked. Probably just tired eyes. MRSC • Talk 22:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Have a look at User:MRSC/Infobox UK place /Oldham. It is drawing the dot in the wrong place. MRSC • Talk 22:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That is very strange.  I don't understand why it works fine outside the infobox... this is going to need a little more investigation.  DJR (T) 23:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Fixed - whoever created the  template had put the wrong longitude/latitude boundaries for the map, throwing everything on a whack.  With a little help from Google Earth, I've corrected them, though I'm not sure how exact they are.  They appear to produce fairly accurate results however.  DJR (T) 23:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Shame some folks thought they would nominate the template for deletion rather than consider discussing it. :-/ MRSC • Talk 07:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I think it's still out.  The dot here should sit nicely on the Stockport/Tameside/Manchester junction, a little left/west of where it is ATM.  Mr Stephen 12:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... and now it does.  Well done.  Mr Stephen 15:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please feel free to suggest or fiddle. Now is the time, before it is put to use. The possibilities are endless as there is no 'legacy' code in there. A good idea is to set up a sub page and create an infobox for a place that is a bit out of the ordinary, to make sure that it works. MRSC • Talk 17:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Taking a look at the Oldham example above, I'd be happy to provide a higher res map for the backdrop - I've been thinking of replacing that image for the Greater Manchester article iteself. Thanks, Jhamez84 17:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do. We had some trouble getting it to work and the position of the dot might need some refining. MRSC • Talk 17:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I made a stab at correcting the longitudes utilised by the  template, but they were based on estimates and it would be good to ensure that they are correct.  Of course, a better image would also be nice... and that goes for London as well.  DJR (T) 19:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we not get something from openstreetmap? like :Image:Greater London Urban Area.PNG? MRSC • Talk 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I've contacted those users active on this page for feedback, but out of courtesy and so no backroom descisions are made, my suggested Greater Manchester infobox map is hereby linked and avaliable for viewing. Comments, objections, preferences - let me know at my talk. Thanks, Jhamez84 01:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  manchester troubles 

message: A few notes about what this template offers over the existing ones. MRSC • Talk 12:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this template is good

message: The template currently has three alternative languages for place names (Welsh, Gaelic and Scots). Are there any others in common usage that should be added? MRSC • Talk 18:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be inviting trouble, but may I suggest Cornish?  I don't necessarily support its inclusion, but I can see an argument in favour, and it might stave off calls for adding elements of which I definitely would not approve (like St Piran's flag). — mholland 19:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't see the harm - added. MRSC • Talk 19:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much obliged. — mholland 19:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: Like this a lot, excellent work.  Just one point, is it possible to put in the fire/police/ambulance automated as I did with the England infobox? Regan123 22:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add them in (bearing in mind the expanded scope). I only left them out as I seem to remember there were some problems with special cases. If this is no longer a problem/can be resolved, all the better! MRSC • Talk 07:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may need a hidden entry for Avon & Cleveland (something like formermetcounty) which would override the ceremonial county link that was there before.Regan123 18:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall we work on this now? Might be a good idea to sketch out how this is supposed to behave in each case. MRSC • Talk 14:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original code works on the ceremonial county.  Perhaps we could introduce a services county field.  If not populated it would automatically become the Ceremonial county.  So for example ceremonial county=Staffordshire results in Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service etc.  If populated say by Avon it would populate Avon Fire and Rescue Service etc.  Regan123 14:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Does that work with Cleveland for example as I thought the councils there were non unitary?  I May of course be wrong... Regan123 15:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes they are unitary: Hartlepool, Stockton-on-Tees, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland. MRSC • Talk 15:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added the mets, shires and london boroughs to this look-up table:Template:Infobox UK place /fire. The Wales, Scotland and England unitaries also need to be added for it to work for all UK. MRSC • Talk 15:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do they need to go at the top or the bottom? Regan123 15:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the bottom, after Westminster. Once complete, we can use a copy of the table as a basis for Police. MRSC • Talk 09:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added in the Fire services for UAs for England now.  Hope I did it right... Regan123 23:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Pretty much.  However there are fewer forces (eg. West Mercia) then there are brigades.  Also we need to consider the City of London Police vis-a-vis the Met. Regan123 23:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah that's cool as the london_borough field calls for London so will select the right one. MRSC • Talk 23:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Great - will start on the Police tomorrow evening. Regan123 23:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry for the late follow up, but this should be sorted now. Regan123 11:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fire / Police / Ambulance 

message: I am not suggesting the old templates should redirect here. This template is an opportunity to wipe the board clean and start again. Each of the four templates has lots of bespoke elements, often done differently on each template. Adding in the legacy code from each of the four templates would make this one as creaky as the ones it is replacing. Also, us having to update the calling syntax (although a lengthy process) will allow us to revisit what is put on each article and correct errors/fill gaps. MRSC • Talk 07:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestion. include all the old option names in an . When they are used, include a hidden links  . Then redirect the old templates and use the "tracker"-page's "What links here" to see which pages use outdated options. You can also do this on a "per option" basis with multiple trackers, and by doing it like that you might also be able to have a "grace period" where you can indeed provide backwards compatibility. Of course you should only do this after you finish the template, so you can easily revert once all "oldstyle" uses have been fixed. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 23:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very good idea.  It would be nice if we could introduce the template in a piecemeal fashion rather than having a "big bang" scenario, and this way we can find out exactly which pages need updating.  DJR (T) 16:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given this some thought and I doubt this is something that can actually be achieved. However, what would be more managable is to copy 'local versions' of this template, once complete, over to the old templates. MRSC • Talk 17:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this may be possible, though I'm not entirely sure what User:TheDJ meant.  I reckon you can store hidden links within the template, though I haven't quite developed the details and I'm going to watch the rugby now.  But stay tuned!  DJR (T) 17:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Definitely possible.  Will be back.  DJR (T) 17:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Older templates

message: Crystal Palace, London is, apparently, in 5 different London boroughs.  To make matters worse, this does not correspond to 5 GLA constituencies, as two pairs overlap, meaning that there are only GLA 3 constituencies.  The implications for this template would suggest we need some kind of code that allows multiple entries for london_borough (or just add even more optional fields), and some kind of system for the GLAoutput that filters GLA constituencies that have already appeared.  I'm sure that latter would be possible using multiple switches in tandem, but I'm not in a position to try and think about it myself at the moment... DJR (T) 13:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding more boroughs is easy enough. For the LA constituencies there is a way to set it up so it follows a manual entry where one exists. MRSC • Talk 15:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Or, if we only generate the LA constituencies from the first three London boroughs, Crystal Palace will work OK. MRSC • Talk 07:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep that's a good idea.  I'm almost certain there is no location in London that claims to be in more than 3 GLA constituencies, so that'd be perfect. DJR (T) 09:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes its easy to overlook the simple solution sometimes. For any places that are split between 2 boroughs that would otherwise generate the same LA constituency data twice (can't think of any, but bound to be one or two) we can place the second borough in one of the fields that does not generate the constituency. The output will remain the same. MRSC • Talk 10:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Beautiful.  DJR (T) 11:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Crystal Palace, London]] 

message: Can we please have the old settings of constituent country and sovereign state in this infobox? This is not only the most neutral, but the most verifiable and useful to international readers. Also can we please have the full spelling of United Kingdom rather than UK? Jhamez84 20:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually you could pupulate the Constituent County automatically from the County field. Regan123 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead with changing UK to United Kingdom. However, in addition to receiving no comments about this, creating a constituent country and sovereign state for this infobox is way beyond my technical editting ability! I actually like this as it will (hopefully) disuade the attempts of distruptive editors. Can we still have these settings I've suggested? Jhamez84 14:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was driven by a desire to use an economy of space to shorten that section, but I understand if others want it back in.  MRSC • Talk 14:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Restored as original. MRSC • Talk 17:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It is technically possible. However, as the flag, european constituency and ambulance service rely on it, it would require quite a bit of reworking. MRSC • Talk 17:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country/ UK = United Kingdom 

message: I'm a bit confused by how these two fields are supposed to work together. My initial thought was that "parish" would contain the name of the parish in which the settlement (or place) is located, with "parish_status" perhaps containing "Town" (if the parish council calls itself a "town council", and "parish" (if it calls itself a parish council), but one would then need to have to have something like "Meeting", because some parishes have parish meetings at which all residents are allowed to attend and speak, rather than a formal council. Some appear not to have anything, even though they are still classified as parishes (this happens in Cheshire, where the Borough or District council has to take on te duties normally devolved to a parish/town council or parish meeting.) However, I'm now not so sure. 
There is also the issue that occurs to a large extent in parts of Cheshire, where separate parishes have joint parish councils (and the constituent parishes of these sometimes have "parish wards" as well), though the parishes are still separate and have not merged. Some parishes even hold joint parish meetings, even though the parishes themselves are kept separate. I've gone into this in rather great detail in trying to sort out the local government of Cheshire, and I doubt Cheshire is an oddity in this respect. It is one reason why I have suggested that there is a need for articles dealing with some parishes separate from the settlements they contain, and, by extension, why there may be a need for a separate parish infobox. So, would it be possible to clarify what the two fields in the current infobox refer to and how they would be understood to be used? Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this needs a little clarification as Ddstretch says. Furthermore, when inputted, the infobox brings up a delinked "Status" header - so should parish_status= also include city status? If so, it may be worth linking "Status" to Local government in the United Kingdom and using it for these purposes. Jhamez84 16:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also forgot to add that some towns are "unparished", i.e., they do not have town or parish councils (eg, Crewe, Wilmslow, and Chester in Cheshire), and some do (eg. Nantwich, Malpas, Congleton, and Northwich in Cheshire). The unparished/parished distinctions seem mostly to have arisen from the changes in Local government in 1974 where some towns which were formally municipal boroughs, had their borough status abolished, but no local government structure (apart from the new Boroughs or Districts) put in their place. Some towns, however, did.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: They are not supposed to work together. One is for if the settlement is also a parish and the other is for a settlement within a larger parish. MRSC • Talk 17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. There perhaps could do with some further elaboration of what is the intention here, because I'm still not sure how these fields will practically work given other issues to do with the logical structure and categorization of articles. I think it would be much more logical to have just one field, which would give the name of the parish within which the infobox's settlement is located. This covers both the situation you have with the proposed two fields, and yet allows for greater flexibility which will sometimes be required. These will be where there can justifiably be separate articles about each of the settlements in a civil parish, together with an article about the parish itself. This solves some tricky issues to do with categories of settlements and categories of parishes, given that one cannot have categories taking on different names from the article name they have been placed in. It would also allow consistency in dealing with civil parishes that are worthy of note, though they contain no settlements within them, with the rest of the parishes, that do. I'm assuming here that the infobox for a place is understood to be focussed on settlements, because civil parishes, although sometimes referring to single settlements, are a conceptually different category of thing.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks - it does help, but it is incomplete. Some places do not have a parish or town council, and neither are they unparished. Instead they have a parish meeting. The distinction is a real one and it would be highly misleading to not cover it. This case could be accommodated by having the option of something like "meeting" as well as town or parish. Additionally, some adjacent parishes have a joint parish council or parish meeting with each other, and the name by which the joint parish council and/or meeting is known reflects this by being different from any of the parishes that are a party to this arrangement. Thus a settlement may be the main settlement within its parish, but the parish council may have a different name because it is shared between that parish and a number of others. It happens to a large extent within the City of Chester borough council, to a lesser extent within Crewe and Nantwich for example, and also happens in other boroughs around the country, but more likely in the north of England. This needs to be catered for by giving guidance over what to enter as the name of the parish - my suggestion is that it would be the actual parish, and not the name given to the joint parish council or meeting. In these cases, one would really have to think about tyhe possibility of having articles that cover these joint councils or meetings. I still think one needs to have "unparished" as an option, and, so long as these fields are purely optional, it will not trouble the people who you say would object.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (additional comment) Although I still think the simpler option of just having one field, and allowing it to contain "unparished" is by far and away better, so long as the current system is optional (thus avoiding the problem of people objecting to repetition, though I think they can simply allow others to do the jobs if they so object), and also ensuring that all of the situations that do arise in the real application can be catered for unambiguously, then I'm prepared to go along with any consensus that would accept the two field solution.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: See my response in the section about "going live". I think there may be some confusion about things: unparished areas are not (civil) parishes. So they cannot and do not have parish councils, town councils, or parish meetings. Parishes can have town councils, parish councils or parish meetings. Given the distinction between "town" and "parish" is merely nowadays that of what the council decides to call itself (if it decides to call itself a "town council", then it is, even though it is still a council for a parish), then I would have thought the distinction between a parish or town council and a  parish meeting is much greater and much more worthy of comment. Also, I think it is a mistake to think of them as being too unusual. They are significant, and equally worthy of being separately indicated in the fields, just as "town" and "parish" is currently being indicated. If there has to be just two possible entries for the field, I would have thought it better to have "council" and "meeting", rather than the "town" and "parish" entry, leaving the field to be omitted for unparished areas. I just strongly view the current conceptual scheme that is inherent in having "town" and "parish" to be misleading, given the other important conceptual differences between the status of the things being described here ("parished" versus "unparished", and, within parishes, "council" versus "meeting", and, finally, within council, "parish council" versus "town council".) One could even draw up a binary-tree to describe how the hierarchy works out with different entities being related to each other and subsumed under each other, and this is certainly how it has been implicitly described in various texts I have read.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we need to forget councils and meetings (which was unfortuantely my starting point for this infobox). If two parishes share a council, it does not change the status of either parish and this should be reflected, not the council name. If a place is unparished, there should be no reference to that as it is the default in most of the country. I can't see any situation where the use of the 'parish' field would be confusing, that is the field that shows which parish a settlement is in. If the 'parish_status' field is going to be problematic, we should remove it. MRSC • Talk 09:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to remove the 'parish_status' field, if discussion produces a strong desire to put it back, then so be it. MRSC • Talk 11:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is the most sensible way forward to maintain the high quality of the work you have already done on producing what will turn out to be a very good new infobox resource. I wonder if a small change to the name of the remaining parish filed would be advisable? The change would be to "civil_parish", to forestall any misunderstanding that this field was intended for the ecclesiastical parish (now, a different entity, but from which the civil parishes can have their origin traced).  DDStretch  (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. MRSC • Talk 16:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "parish_status" and "parish" fields 

message: I think the Parish Council becomes a Town Council, rather than the parish becomes a town. It could be lost from the box altogether really as its not that significant, although it is often not recorded in articles. MRSC • Talk 17:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, you are correct. Sorry for my clumsy wording. I really would like a field for the parish to be included, as it would fit in very well with the use of this infobox in articles covered within the Cheshire WikiProject.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Town vs. Town Council

message: Is this template ready to use, or is still in a pre-release stage? Pit-yacker 21:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like all the issues raised on here have been addressed. I'm still unsure about using a standalone conurbation map for Greater Manchester and other city regions. But if the consensus is there.... Jhamez84 22:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, seems like some articles have begun using this infobox - Crystal Palace, London and Lewis. Jhamez84 22:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but all the issues have not yet been addressed, as there are issues still with the entries for the parishes that need sorting out (such as the omission I have pointed out in my latest message in the appropriate section, above.)  DDStretch  (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is quite unnecessary to rush into an implementation of a half-baked template.  Until we are all confident that all possible usage permutations for this template a) are possible, and b) work in practice, then we should wait.  I am currently experimenting with a system where all of the old templates can be redirected here straight away without any consequences for pages using their old codes.  The system will create a page that lists all pages using old code, and then updates can be made in a piecemeal fashion rather than having to implement a "big bang" across the board.  DJR (T) 01:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies. I missed that unresolved topic above, though the examples I highlighted above are examples of articles that are going ahead with the changes. With regards to the unresolved topic (as I will be dual posting also there) my thoughts are that unparished areas that have parish meetings should not have this information in the infobox, as that section relates to divisions of land as opposed to events. Jhamez84 01:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry for any confusion, but I think you may have been misled a little: There are unparished areas, and there are parished areas. Some parished areas do not have either a town council or a parish council, but they do have a parish meeting. Additionally, some parishes do not have either a parish council or a parish meeting on their own, but they have a joint parish council or parish meeting with other adjacent parishes. If the field has "town" or "parish" in it, then this also refers not so much to a division of land but it now refers to the different name the parish council chooses to call itself: a town council as opposewd to a parish council. I can't see how the distinction between "divisions of land" and "events" can be usefully maintained here.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this template safe to release into the "wild" yet? 

message: Does this template need adding to a few categories?
e.g.
Category:Geography infobox templates
Category:United Kingdom navigational boxes
WOSlinker 10:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good idea. MRSC • Talk 10:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: What are our thoughts on this being automated? It is mostly done by regions, but I seem to remember there being small exceptions (aside from the South East split). If we have a good schedule of these exceptions it can be factored-in. Does anyone have a such a list? MRSC • Talk 00:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One way to do it is to use the automated value unless a manual value has been set using the   parameter. WOSlinker 07:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the way it was done before, but it will produce errors until they are corrected; and it may not be completely obvious how to do that. I don't mind this option TBH, but I'm playing devils advocate as others have pointed this out on the old template. MRSC • Talk 08:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambulance

message: 
</td>

Some thoughts:
*I think the headings are useful. People from outside Britain may not know what an OS grid reference is. And perhaps the latitude/longitude information should be included too.
*The ceremonial county should be explicitly stated even when it is the same as the metro/non-metro county, as this makes comparing different places easier without knowledge of the current local government situation.
*The ceremonial county should be removed from the administration section and placed alongside the historic county information in an 'other' section as neither have any administrative role.
*The template looks a bit cramped, but I guess that is as a result of sharing the look-and-feel of the generic City template.
Owain (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't got the headings, but I have added an "Other" section as per the existing template. It picks up the ceremonial county from either the shire_county or metropolitan_county field if they exist, otherwise from the ceremonial_county field. Owain (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what is gained by this other than a less efficient use of space. MRSC • Talk 14:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! Now I see. You sneekily put back your historic counties field, despite the consensus on this talk page not to include it. Nice. MRSC • Talk 14:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no sneakiness here, other than that to create a new version of an existing template and to remove information already contained in the originals. What is gained is the ability to compare ceremonial counties without having to know that the field is left out if the shire_county and metropolitan_county fields are filled in. That is confusing. What consensus do you speak of? I am replicating the "original" section from the existing template. You have failed to explain to me why this is a bad thing, and also why deliberately excluding information that is already held on pages using the existing template is a good thing. Owain (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps because people do not believe the "Historic" stuff is needed. As [[User:MRSC}} said, it seems a consensus on here not to have it. Why don't you abide by the idea of consensus anymore? I have a compromise suggestion based on your idea that the ceremonial county information doesn't have any administrative role (thoyugh I don't know if that is really the case). Move the ceremonial county information to an "other" section on its own (i.e., don't have any of the "historic county" stuff in, but do have an other section).  DDStretch  (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if people believe it or not, it is verifiable and present in the existing templates. A compromise was made so that it wasn't mentioned in the opening paragraph (as Britannica does) but it was mentioned in the infobox. This template is now appearing to remove that by stealth. That cannot be condoned. Owain (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The new template does not really present the ceremonial county as having an administrative role, it just presents its existence. The field is only included for places that are not in a shire or metropolitan county (this is currently the status quo on some articles as other editors made the field optional and went about removing it where it was the same as the shire/metropolitan county; wisely removing the situation where there was a repetition of say "Kent, Kent, Kent"). It should also be remembered that the creation of the English lieutenancy areas did not occur in a vacuum, it was a reaction to the creation of unitary authorities and a means to group them into larger counties. This template now reflects that better than the old one did. MRSC • Talk 19:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is present in the "admin" section though, surrounded by other administrative entities. If the infobox was to have section headings it would clearly be misrepresented as such. The lieutenancy areas and historic counties are uniform systems - having the field appear and disappear seemingly at random would be confusing to people that aren't intimately familiar with the local government structure. Owain (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison with existing templates

message: How about including a section for the Scottish Sheriffdom? MRM 13:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that exactly the same boundaries as the lieutenancy? MRSC • Talk 14:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no they are not. Must have been thinking of something else. I don't see any reason why not. MRSC • Talk 14:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Aren't Catholics and Protestants (and Orthodox) all Christian, just as Sunnis and Shi'ites are all Moslems? I think only the most hard-line would say one was, and the other wasn't/weren't, or that all weren't. Even setting aside the problem with thinking that Catholics and Protestants are not of the same religion, I don't think "religion" could be easily verified for most places in the UK. I can just see various vandals engaging in even more disruption by sabotaging such fields, given the amount of attention this is causing now concerning claims about various religions or religious denominations/sects or whatever. Surely, the information could be included in the text if it is thought notable enough to be included for any place?  DDStretch  (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. That does make more sense. MRM 13:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Pit-yacker 16:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:Infobox England place with UK flag for UK map 

message: I've made this automatic for Scotland and Wales, but left it manual for England just now. MRSC • Talk 07:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we work out the problem areas and then break them down by district like for the Police & Fire sections? Regan123 14:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When they did the reorganisation there was a document (available online) that had the full schedule including exceptions. I've been trying to find it but I've been a bit light on time this week. If we can track down that document (it may even have been Hansard or the wording of the SIs, I'm not sure) we can use that to work out where the problems are. MRSC • Talk 14:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Found it! MRSC • Talk 08:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambulance update

message: I'm going to test the template out in a variety of place articles to make sure it works. We should look to documenting all the possible permutations. Some work has already been done on that here. MRSC • Talk 12:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First thing I've found is that the police and fire look-up tables are missing the data for most English unitary authorities. MRSC • Talk 12:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we need to enter UA details if they are part of a Ceremonial County coverage (eg. Stoke-on-Trent / Staffordshire)? Regan123 14:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. MRSC • Talk 14:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Think I got them all. Regan123 16:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. It's a good time now to test it out on a few more examples. I suppose this could be done in article space, although I'm doing this in my userspace. MRSC • Talk 17:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Testing

message: How clever are bots? Could one look at articles linking to template:Infobox England place and convert the syntax such as 'place=Cambridge' to 'official_name=Cambridge', add 'country=England' etc. Does anyone know how to create/request this? The specification would have to be very detailed, perhaps this is more a job for AWB, which I've also never used. Anyone any idea if that would help? MRSC • Talk 19:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would certainly help, but I'm not sure how one gets one written of made to do the job. However, let us assume one does the job, would it be an idea to get a list of people who are prepared just to glance quickly at the results, may be each taking on a subset of the edits, to make sure no problems happened? If so, I would happily volunteer to do part of the work.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure AWB could do that. AFAICT you would need to write regular expressions to do it.  I have used AWB on the Template:infobox England place series of templates quite a bit. However, writing regular expressions isn't something I have suceeded in doing yet, I end up turning the page into mush :(.  All I have done is a simple find and replace, thats why a lot of pages have Latitude and Longitude as their first parameter.  On a normal account AWB requires the user to confirm each edit before it is saved so whilst it is quicker than doing it by hand, the user has to be present.  However, if a bot account is created and AWB is run through this one of these accounts, changes can be done automatically without the user being present. If you feel adventurous you can download AWB and have a look at it here. However, you need to register at WP:AWB before you can actually connect to Wikipedia using it.
Pit-yacker 23:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  ... in for a penny, I've registered for AWB if my small brain can get to grips with it, I'll be glad to give a hand. Kbthompson 23:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Just as a further point - its possible to save/export settings.  So if anyone knows how to do the correct Rules/Reg Exps then it can be saved and distributed to everyone involved Pit-yacker 23:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this would be good if someone works out how to do it. MRSC • Talk 11:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bots/AWB?

message: The Police & Ambulance for Cleethorpes in the new Infobox don't match what's in the old Infobox.
WOSlinker 22:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changing it to unitary_england does the trick. Regan123 22:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleethorpes 

message: Came across :Template:Infobox Sheffield place this whilst having a wander.  Can we merge this in as well? Regan123 00:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is probably best. MRSC • Talk 09:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also just come across Template:UK Parish.  In my previous travels I know that a fair few Parishes use Template:infobox England place.  The only thing that UK Parish includes, which this one doesnt is a "Status" parameter.  I know a number of articles which use non-standard tables (these seem to Cluster in certain areas, Cambridgeshire, and Northamptonshire being a couple of examples) also include a status parameter.  Could it be worth including a status parameter? Pit-yacker 19:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When this template is complete, I think the next job should be Template:Infobox UK division which should be an infobox that will work for parishes, districts, counties, regions etc. (basically any official areas with definite boundaries for which statistical information is/can be produced). This will consolidate the variety of templates used. MRSC • Talk 19:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think this would be a truly excellent additional resource. If there is any way I could be of assistance, then let me know. I'll be very happy to help in any way i can with this one.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first thing to do is collect together a list of all the currently existing UK templates to consolidate. Then, look to see if there is a standard infobox (I would be suprised if there isn't) that we can adapt. I've started the list of current templates here. MRSC • Talk 20:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah those things have been bugging me for a while - their format seems to be very much out of date.  Definitely should be tackled once this is out the way.  DJR (T) 00:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheffield place infobox 

message: Instead of having uk_latitude, coor_latitude, london_latitude and manchester_latitude & their associated longitude, why not just have latitude & longitude and have another parameter called maptype?
maptype could then be set to nomap, United Kingdom (default value, so not required to be set), Greater London or Greater Manchester.
Would also make it simpler to add further map images.
WOSlinker 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds perfectly reasonable to be. MRSC • Talk 19:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I've changed the template. WOSlinker 21:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've now added an option so that map_type can be used for static maps as well. See Lewis for an example. WOSlinker 21:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latitute, Longitude & Maps 

message: I'm afraid I've taken what Owain has said to heart and conducted a review of all amendments, both suggested and actioned, since the template was created:
User              	Amendment                                     	Result
User:Djr xi       	add Greater Manchester map                    	implemented
User:Djr xi       	change country from link to value             	implemented
User:Djr xi       	change London borough from link to value      	implemented
User:Djr xi       	automate EU constituency                      	implemented
User:Mais oui!    	delete template                               	not done; unanimous TFD vote to KEEP
User:Djr xi       	rename westminster_constituency to westminster	not done
User:Mholland     	add cornish language                          	implemented
User:Morrismaciver	add languages spoken                          	implemented
User:Regan123     	automate fire and police                      	implemented
User:Djr xi       	automate London Assembly constituency         	implemented
User:Jhamez84     	UK expanded to United Kingdom                 	implemented
User:Jhamez84     	change Machester map                          	implemented
User:Jhamez84     	parish council changed to parish              	implemented
User:Regan123     	automate constituent country                  	not done
User:Ddstretch    	remove parish_status field                    	implemented
User:Djr xi       	rename area_code to dial_code                 	implemented
User:WOSlinker    	add categories                                	implemented
User:Owain        	add 'historic counties'                       	not done; rejected by User:Mais oui!, User:Ddstretch, User:MRSC, User:Djr xi
User:Regan123     	automate ambulance                            	implemented
User:Owain        	insert ceremonial counties for all            	not done; rejected by User:Ddstretch, User:MRSC
User:Morrismaciver	add sheriffdom                                	not yet done
User:WOSlinker    	combine maps into one                         	implemented
User:Mais oui!    	page move                                     	implemented
User:Mais oui!    	retain static Scottish maps                   	implemented
User:Mais oui!    	include Northern Ireland                      	in discussion
Based on this, I do not think his words are fair or justified. If there is someone who isn't listening, it isn't me. MRSC • Talk 14:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your assessment. Just for completeness, there's another amendment you inadvertently omitted from the list: the changing of "parish" to "civil_parish" to avoid any confusion between what is intended and the ecclesiastical parish. You kindly implemented this suggestion as well.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't what you said before. You said: [I] reject all criticism or attempts to improve [the template] and that this is the reason your addition was not included. If you look at the group discussions above you will see that the reason your addition is not included is because several editors both reverted your addition and explicitly stated on this talk page they do not want it included. Faced with this result you decided to make false and derogatory comments about me instead. This pattern of behaviour is not acceptable. MRSC • Talk 12:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop this charade. This template is supposed to be a replacement for templates that already exist. The fields that I am attempting to get into this supposed replacement were already discussed ad nauseum and included in the templates that already exist. Now, several editors reverted it and didn't want it and that is supposed to make all the difference? This is an attempt to push your POV by stealth. You would not be able to get the fields removed from the original templates, so you try to make another and exclude them. That is an underhand POV-pushing tactic. I am all for the unified template if and only if it includes all the information currently presented in the existing ones. Hundreds of different editors have worked to include this data on their pages and you wish to remove it? This pattern of behaviour is not acceptable. Owain (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In which case it appears we are at deadlock. We have attempted to resolve the issue by discussion but have failed. Official arbitration is the next stage.  MRSC • Talk 14:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a good idea. I've started the straw polls. MRSC • Talk 07:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been away from Wikipedia for a while so I've missed out on all these wonderful accusations of foul-play, "pushing POV by stealth" etc. etc.  I realise this might be better suited under some new discussion, but I am yet to read that far so will type it while I remember it.  I personally find it unbelievable that User:Mais Oui! can possibly concoct a conspiracy theory for this template to symbolise some kind of plot to undermine Scottish maps or even Scottish independence.  In my (POV) opinion, now that the North Sea's pretty much served its use, I'd like nothing more than detaching England from Scotland so that we no longer have to waste money subsidising things without thanks.  However, this is Wikipedia and it is NPOV, and by that accord the UK is a sovereign entity and there is no reason to have separate templates when all relevant information can be incorporated into one.  As for User:Owain - to suggest that this historic/ceremonial counties business was removed without consensus is under the assumption that consensus has remained the same since whenever it was last questioned.  The fact that so many users hear support its removal in the name of rationalisation should surely suggest to you that the tide is turning.  DJR (T) 01:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: MRSC, could you please tell us, as clearly and succinctly as possible, exactly why you have created this template? What are the weaknesses with the 4 existing templates, as you see it? As far as I am aware you have not had any problems with any of them prior to now, so exactly why are you now engaged in trying to delete our long-standing templates? We deserve to know your objective(s). --Mais oui! 10:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been covered on this talk page. But to re-iterate/expand:
#Consistency with template:Infobox City and this template uses the "infobox geography" class for consistency throughout WP
#Having one template means only a single update is needed instead of having to do all four (or worse updating only some)
#Having one template reduces the legitimacy of content forks 
#The template is very flexible: it is easy to add sections without upsetting the rest of the template 
#The output of this template is smaller but has a comparable amount of information
#The issues around some of the automation (police/fire/ambulance) not working properly in the old templates is resolved
#This template can handle places split between divisions much easier with second and third fields for everything from post town to constituency. It is also painless to add more if needed
#This template can add latitude/longitude top-of-screen information to all articles, even those with static maps
#This template received a uninanimous vote to keep] in TFD
Any good reasons not to have one template? MRSC • Talk 11:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In the TFD it was suggested that all UK places could be merged into Template:Infobox City which is global (and not just for cities). As this template is based on that, this exercise is a valid precursor if such a move where to happen in the future. MRSC • Talk 15:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If (or when) that starts to be implemented, I hope there would be a move to change its name so that it doesn't contain the word "City", and instead uses something more like "Settlement" or "Place".  DDStretch  (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have my doubts about going wider than UK due to complexity issues.  What I like about the amount of automation is that this template makes it much easier for inexperienced editors to add this template.  I would have preferred more with respect to constituent county ref Cornwall and Orkney (no disrespect to any editor intended whatsoever) but that would cause more difficulties with the template coding I understand. Regan123 22:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this template is good (2)

message: Just a comparison between Template:Infobox Irish Place and Template:Infobox UK place  for Belfast.
WOSlinker 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be issues with the flag (Northern Ireland flags issue), so may be best to not include any flag. WOSlinker 10:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See also Talk:Northern_Ireland#Flag_Debate_Part_II for more flag debate. WOSlinker 12:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It is definitely worth treading carefully when approaching this. MRSC • Talk 12:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would agree with a removal of the flag field. -- Mal 00:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think the flag field may cause unnecessary friction and unwanted disputes for certain parts of what is currently the UK.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Are we saying get rid of the flags for England, Scotland and Wales? I like the flags as they give a quick visual clue as to where the place is. But we could replace them with something more useful such as a link to List of United Kingdom locations and, also say (where applicable) List of places in Scotland, List of places in England, List of places in Wales and List of places in Northern Ireland. This will add a bit off cross-navigation to the templates, similar to what we have on the London template at the moment. MRSC • Talk 11:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison of Infoboxes for northern Ireland

message: Preumably the red locator dot functionality, as indicated in the link I gave above will be, or is, included on this template? -- Mal 00:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the Northern Ireland & Greater Belfast map_type options to the template. WOSlinker 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra functionality

message: This is currently included only where a place is not in a shire or metropolitan county. Instead, this should be included in an "other" section on all articles.
Support
*Owain (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ceremonial county

message: This is currently not included. Instead, this should be included in an "other" section on all articles.
Support
#Owain (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Historic county

message: I've been directed here from discussions on a London place template. But am I in the right place? Is the intention to have the same template for all places? The same template for a city as for an informal, non-official area, such as Soho and Bloomsbury? How would that work? Would people have the option to not include information such as Services, which are the responsibility of a local authority, rather than a non-official neighbourhood? SilkTork 08:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The primary intention was to produce a template which uses much less space but has similar output. It was your edits to the London template to reduce width/height which provided the initial motivation to construct this one. See (much further) above for two side-by-side examples, you will see the output is much smaller. MRSC • Talk 08:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O wow! Yes. That's so much better. Smaller, neater and clearer. Brilliant stuff. It looks more attractive and more professional. Of course, I still have questions about the content because places are different, and if a place has no responsibility for services, for example, then it would be inappropriate for service details to be included. SilkTork 08:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Through the use of optional fields and switches, it has been possible to isolate certain information so that it is only activated in the relevant contexts.  However, I have a feeling that what you are suggesting might be challenging something that has been somewhat assumes throughout this process, with regards to services being stated when they are not the responsibility of the "place" being mentioned.  I think it has been assumed that the use of broader service information (i.e. The Met for anywhere in London) is fairly self-explanatory.  DJR (T) 01:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the intention for this template? 

message: I like to print out articles on areas that I am visiting. I just printed out Brighton and was surprised at the amount of space taken by the Infobox. This appears to be because the OS grid reference has a link, and the link is printed out in full, expanding the width of the box to 3/4 of the page. Is there a way of preventing this from happening? SilkTork 22:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a   around the grid reference to stoping it being expanded when printed WOSlinker 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of Infobox when printing out articles 

message: I've provisionally upgraded the infobox at the Shaw and Crompton article. I think it looks good, but have we considered including somehow a message that could say "Shown within X" depending on what map is selected? (So X being Greater Manchester in this case). 
I think this would be a significant improvement in providing a wider national and international context, but I'm unsure if it is technically feasible. If it is feasible, I think it should use the "" text, and with X being linked. Jhamez84 01:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it to the GM map. There was no easy way to do it universally, but this gives local projects the option to add a caption to their maps if they want. I'm not that fussed about it going on the London maps, for example. MRSC • Talk 05:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I'm sure London will be able to stand on its own, but if we have maps in the future specific to other city-regions, this approach may well be the most helpful. Thanks again, Jhamez84 16:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shown within X 

message: As NI is now fully functional, I'm going to move this template back to Template:Infobox UK place and fix the incoming links. MRSC • Talk 06:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is complete. This template name should be used from now on. MRSC • Talk 06:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NI / Renaming