Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 2

message: I have added a map for the Tyne and Wear metropolitan county as a version of the old template exists with a Tyne and Wear map at Template:infobox North East England place.  The reasons for creating that template appear to be the same as this the reasons for creating this template.  IIUC, there appears to have been a misunderstanding that Greater Manchester and others had their own separate template? Pit-yacker 17:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to produce maps for any city-region of the UK in the same style of Greater Manchester and Greater London. Each would take me a few days. One thing we may want to consider is if we need consensus for whether we use a UK, or localised map in an infobox as places around the Wigan borough have seen revisions from one anonymous editor (and what appears to be a single purpose account) against a "citywide" map. Jhamez84 22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyne and Wear metropolitan county 

message: Mow Cop is split between parishes, counties, and regions. However, there isn't any facility to have two regions. I don't know if this could be added (and I wouldn't know how to do it myself). Could an additional region field (region1?) be added. I only realised this when I tried it out just now. It would in this case have a knock-on effect with the Euro constituency. Mow Cop may be (one of?) the most extreme example(s) of this kind of split.
I've also realised that in these cases, which way round one enters the counties, etc, has a bearing on the filling-in of the Fire, Police, Ambulance, and Euro Constituency fields. Perhaps a note somewhere about this needs to be added, but I'm not sure where.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a real need to have more than one region specifiable.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This can be achieved. We did something simlar with the London boroughs that generate the London Assembly constituencies. MRSC • Talk 13:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how often it would be used, but Mow Cop is in a very unsual situation here, being split at so many levels of administrative structure. It needs to be both in the West Midlands and the North West regions.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add it as soon as I get a moment. MRSC • Talk 13:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Would it be more suitable to have a Mow Cop specific infobox using a similar style as this infobox? Just an idea for saving the syntax programming. Jhamez84 13:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would probably ease the burden of work somewhat, so long as there are not many other places in a similar situation.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Many thanks to MRSC for his attention to and solution to the problem of Mow Cop.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made it pick up the services too. In order for the second services to appear the shire_district3, shire_county3, etc. etc. have to be filled in. This is because there will be some places that although split, the two divisions will have the same services so there is no need to generate it twice. These cases can use shire_district1, shire_county1 etc. as they already did. MRSC • Talk 15:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The error that prevented the second county appearing is also corrected now. MRSC • Talk 20:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some edits to the template needed for the extreme example of [[Mow Cop]], and one more observation 

message: Just attempted to change over Daresbury. It is in Halton (borough), which AFAICT is a unitary authority.  Police and Fire dont appear to be working for this. Pit-yacker 23:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs a redirect bypass to work. Regan123 23:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheshire Bug? 

message: If one looks at the Bolton article, and then say, Latchford, one can see that the fields in the infobox are spaced nice and evenly in Latchford, using single lines, but have double spacing in Bolton.
It's not limited to Bolton, Oldham is another example of lots of double spacing, and Milnrow is an example where just it's Metropolitan Borough field is doubled up. It's not a GM issue, as, for example, Moss Side and Farnworth are correctly spaced. Is this correctable? - As it doesn't add much weight to the reduced spacing inference, and looks somewhat (well very slightly) unsightly in some cases. Jhamez84 12:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is caused by the parliament constituencies all put in one field, rather than split out. I've corrected these examples. MRSC • Talk 13:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I spent about an hour last night using the "show preview" function to try to work out the fault. If I see it again, I'll fix it there and then according to you findings. Thanks again, Jhamez84 13:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Swindon seems to suffer from the same problem Pit-yacker 18:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be ok now. MRSC • Talk 20:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent spacing 

message: How does this template deal with the situation where there is an area  and a settlement with the same name, but different statistics used for each.  For example, where there is a village within a parish of the same name and a population figure for each of these?Mammal4 13:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a related issue: that of a civil parish which contains a number of settlements. As far as I can see, the census data normally gives population figures for the civil_parishes, but not separately for any settlements included within a given civil_parish. So putting this census-supplied figure in each settlement would be misleading. It is one of the issues that makes me think that there is a need for a civil_parish infobox, and a greater need to have, where appropriate, separate articles about civil_parishes and settlements in the cases where a civil_parish does not contain merely one settlement. I think the guidelines on the various "How to write..." guides do not cover these cases in sufficient detail, but I'd be happy to work on a specific one myself if there is any interest. I've been collating a list of useful information that a article just about a civil_parish might include, and which could be added to the "How to write about settlements..."  sections in any sections dealing with Local Government or Administration. Would this be viewed here as a good idea? (I know this may not be the best place, but it will give a kind of response to base any planning on.)  DDStretch  (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree. I think there should be a seperate flexible infobox for any official division from parish right up to region. I don't see this infobox as being a substitute for that at the parish level. Population figures are by nature problematic. Although a straight figure is a nice thing to have in an infobox, ideally it should come with an explanation of exactly what output area it relates to. This could be achieved with the  tags. MRSC • Talk 15:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "how to write about (civil) parishes" would be a good addition to the UK Geography WikiProject. I'm a sucker for consistency however, and on these grounds would urge that they not be too detached from the "how to write about settlements guide". Perhaps it is worth raising this at the relevant talk page; the guide could explain the use of infoboxes for complex parish arrangements also?? Jhamez84 16:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is very similar to what I was thinking of. As for it not being so detached from the settlements guide, I was also thinking of basing it around a section that could be included within other articles (say settlements that are also the only settlement within a civil parish of the same name), and then suggesting how to "expand" or "customise" this section to make it a standalone article if required (for the more complex arrangements). I think that would rather nicely make the point that civil parishe and settlements are often closely related. I'll rough out something and then raise it on the talk page, so something concrete can be discussed right from the start, rather than it being just a vague intention at first which may be difficult to "get across" to others.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I made a set of infoboxes for parishes in Penwith a year or so back (see St Buryan).  In this example there actually is population data for both the village and the parish which I think is useful to include, but it isn't always available for every parish.  I would argue in this case that it isn't really a good idea to split the settlement article away from the parish as the two are so closely interlinked in terms of writing that it would lead to a lot of repitition between the two pages. I've also used the infobox as an opportunity to list what I've called secondary settlements in the parish.  I don't think the UK place infobox covers either of these points Mammal4 17:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that north of the "parish line" (as the researcher Dorothy Silvester named it), civil parishes can tend to be larger than they are in the south, with multiple settlements within them. Some of these civil parishes are named after what could be called the "principal settlement", but some are not, and in some of these, there is no clear-cut principal settlement. So, we must be careful not to assume that there is always just one settlement per civil parish. In my experience, quite a few of these settlements already have articles, and for completeness, it is a good idea to have information about civil parishes as well, because of the role, duties, and responsibilities assigned to them in Local Government. Obviously some of these cases can be "solved" by having a "joint" article about the civil parish and the principal settlement, with sub-sections dealing with secondary settlements, but this is not always satisfactory. In quite a few cases, things like population figuers for the infoboxes for settlements, and the placement of articles into various categories used on wikipedia might become a bit "strained".  DDStretch  (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: query

message: This seems a reasonable template to use. However, certain unitary authorities such as the Scottish Borders or the Scottish Highlands, cover a huge area and it would be useful to have an idea on where certain places are within them. Eg it takes as long to drive from Thurso to Fort William as it does from London to Berwick upon Tweed, so placing a town within Sutherland or Lochaber would be helpful. Brendandh 16:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The templates that this one is supposedly replacing already have this field. However the proponents of this one have unilaterally decided to remove it and in doing will remove this valid data from all articles that use the existing templates. Owain (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: However the proponents of this one have unilaterally decided to remove it This is not true, for readers new to this debate. If one cares to look back over the discussions and archive discussions, you can see that consensus was reached on this point by at least three means, but User:Owain refuses to accept this. Consesnsus can change, and it did, but Owain refuses to accept this.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can confirm that this is an accurate summary. MRSC • Talk 13:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scottish historic counties

message: It would be good if the WSG84 longitude and latitude co-ordinates in this template could be presented using the Geo microformat in the mark-up. All that is required is for 
<span title="Maps, aerial photos, and other data for 52.499Â° N -1.708Â° E">
52.499Â° N -1.708Â° E</span>
to become:
<span class="geo" title="Maps, aerial photos, and other data for 52.499Â° N -1.708Â° E">
<span class="latitude>52.499</span>Â° N <span class="longitude">-1.708</span>Â° E</span>
with the addition of two spans and three classes. Please let me know if you need further information. Andy Mabbett 22:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Infobox UK place template uses  to show the co-ordinates which in turn uses , so the best place to ask for this would be on at Template talk:Coor d - WOSlinker 23:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you- I will do so. Andy Mabbett 09:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Geo microformat

message: What is the problem here? MRSC • Talk 23:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea.  I posted a notice and no one has objected.  Certainly if I was the user who changed them I would revert straight back. Regan123 23:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure if this really explains what is going on. A a notice was put on the Scotland template talk page, notifying interested parties. What else should have been done, and more to the point, what is it that is objectionable about replacing the template? The unanimous TFD did not raise any concerns and we've had lots of discussions here. MRSC • Talk 00:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked for the user cited to pass comment here. To stop further inferences of back room decisions, I'll personally post to the various, UK, Scots, Welsh and other related WikiProjects now. Jhamez84 01:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All reverted again.  There have been no objections bar one user. Other Scottish editors are using it.  I suggest we just carry on. Regan123 12:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Mais oui! was asked to pass comment here (), though it appears he has declined to engage in debate. I've also contacted multiple WikiProjects per below and still no objections. It seems continuing our work is therefore the right thing to do. Jhamez84 12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scotland reversions

message: I see there is scope for images to be placed at the top of the infobox. Is it left to individuals whether to use one or not, or are there plans to include images as standard, or infact to leave them all out? I was only asking because adding images lengthens the box considerably.  Don't know if I have made that clear - Any views? –MDCollins (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood that there is a function to include a static image in the infobox. Though I'd use it with caution, as what one user may see as appropriate, another may not. Jhamez84 12:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I just applied the changes to Hackney Central, in order to get some experience of doing the process, to try to automate it, using Acton as a model. There are a number of issues:
#It's not a straight substitution, so there's quite a lot of editing to do by hand
#The Parliamentary constituency had been lost in the midst of time, so to restore it (despite local knowledge) took some looking up.
#The map pin drops in the middle of London Fields, so coordinates are going to come back to bite us, they are spuriously accurate.
#The pin dropped off the map, in one preview, together with the list of London places; I assume this was someone tinkering, as they're back now.
#Moving onto Hoxton, the N postcode page is not set up, or delinked from the template
Just thought I'd share that experience. Kbthompson 15:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working my way round the London postcode areas using a copy of the Royal Mail Address Management Guide. SE, N, and SW are left to do. MRSC • Talk 15:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've completed N, SW and SE. However, just as I finished another editor split the SE postcode area back out into stub articles SE1, SE2, SE3... etc. MRSC • Talk 11:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementing London 

message: Wimborne Minster uses Uses a set of little used parameters on the old infobox - UKMapX, UKMapY, LocalMapX, LocalMapY, and LocalMap. In other words it has two dynamic maps.  How should we procede on articles like this?  For the record, UKMapX and Y are just used as Latitude and Longitude into Template:Location map at the moment. Pit-yacker 02:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, it appears that I have inadvertently updated this article in the wee small hours to the new infobox without spotting this question. I decided that only one map was really needed, the local map of hampshire was something I hadn't seen before, and deemed unnecessary. (As I have seen, the idea of this infobox is to encourage standardisation...) Sorry if this was the wrong approach, please feel to edit/revert or whatever - just let me know what you have done so that I can bear it in mind for the future. –MDCollins (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Got it. It should be treated as a split region by using shire_district3 / shire_county3 for one of the regions (works the same for the other types of divisions but with the "3" on the end). MRSC • Talk 09:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It had District on the end of Wokingham which broke it. Regan123 15:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Can one be set up as the static_image and the other as map_type? MRSC • Talk 06:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got Redland, Bristol working. MRSC • Talk 12:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: On a point of information, Warrington isn't a city. However, its article mixes up town information with borough (district) information, and there are separate areas of this district that are not part of the town which are significant places in their own right. I've just assessed the article for the Cheshire and England WikiProjects and recommended that the article be split to make it less unwieldy and to assist in some of the problems that this causes (and which has been noted by others on its talk page). That should solve part of that problem. It is the solution that, but for the original creater of the district article choosing an incorrect name for the article, has been successfully used to distinguish between Chester and City of Chester (should be something like Chester City (district)).  DDStretch  (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Non-standard" Articles 

message: As we are past the half way mark, and to prevent further edit-warring on South Yorkshire and Scotland articles, I have  nominated the previous templates for deletion. This will remove any doubts about consensus one way or the other. MRSC • Talk 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to approve of the deletion of the four old templates, but I don't feel that I can until the documentation for this one is complete.  This template needs to be ready for use by everyone, and not just its developers.  Heck, even one or two of you guys are still encountering rogue behaviour from this template.  I'm aware there are some other, less valid, objections, but this template needs to be as wikiwiki to use as the old ones for consensus to form around it.  Thanks for all the good work. — mholland 17:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are examples now for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and all the various English arrangements. What else needs to be added? MRSC • Talk 17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm unclear as to precisely how the automation works: which fields are automated, and which other fields do the automated ones depend upon?  I can see what input the automation expects because I've browsed the lookup tables, but not everyone will know to do that - maybe a note on that?  There's also no demonstration of a couple of fields, like static_image - and I've yet to see that used in the wild. — mholland 17:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very relevant, I've added these details. Not sure about static_image, it was originally for static maps but we have merged that in now so you can add a static map as the value for map_type. It could (possibly?) be removed. I'm not sure if anyone needs it. MRSC • Talk 18:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: More needed? The documentation is now better. It may just be me, but the section titled "Full syntax" does not seem to me to contain the full syntax. for example, for various strange situations, three fields are required (e.g., Mow Cop, as discussed in detail on this page). If I am correct, I can appreciate that the full syntax would be obscure if these things needed for special cases were included, and so i wonder if a change might be needed so that the section reads "Normally Used Full Syntax", togetyher with a note stating that for various unusual cases, it may be necessary to use some more esoteric fields, not explicitly mentioned. A contact user could then be given who might be willing to assist in "difficult cases". Just a thought...  DDStretch  (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a note in the England documentation about that, its pretty obscure and unlikely to crop up very often. As for anything further, I encourage others to add anything they think would help. MRSC • Talk 19:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Documentation looks good now.  Thanks. — mholland 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TFD

message: Can someone add Historic county to the england template? Because when I add it, it seems to cause problems. The field should be called Historic county and |historic_county=. It should also be optional. - Nick C 18:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place/Archive_1#Straw_polls. MRSC • Talk 18:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic County 

message: I tried adding the postcode details on the Macclesfield article, exactly as I have done on every other article, but they dont seem to be working. G-Man * 21:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You just need a lower case p :-) Regan123 21:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Macclesfield weirdness

message: Has anyone managed to adapt the settings for updating London articles? MRSC • Talk 07:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or Wales? My settings won't recognise the Welsh versions to convert. Jhamez84 11:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only implemented England to start with.  A version that includes Wales (and seems to work after a very quick test) is available at User:Pit-yacker/Sandbox3.  I'm not sure that I have understood the Welsh governmental structure so its probably a good idea for someone to check it. Am I right in interpreting that the current Welsh box doesnt actually support Welsh name or Welsh assembly?  I havent implemented the undocumented localmap (again), UK map (again), and mapplace either, I'm not actually sure these are used at all? Pit-yacker 15:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at Administrative divisions of Wales and Subdivisions of Scotland. That should inform you. G-Man * 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Have added London now.  It appears to work.  Only major issue is that I havent worked out is an easy way to strip out the London borough value yet so this will have to be done manually.  It also currently removes the GLA parameter which I assume is redundant? I will leave Scotland for now as AFAICT the syntax is still being finalised?Pit-yacker 15:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you update the London articles by district (all the borough locations are categorised) you can paste e.g. "|london_borough=Newham" over the text each time. MRSC • Talk 09:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that script, it's a little beyond me! I had a go with that script on some London locations, at the moment, I had to fix the postcode manually. Maybe my mistake, but I thought I'd draw it to your attention. Kbthompson 10:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The script is only trained to look for postcodes of a certain pattern specifically one or tow letters followed by numbers, followed by anything.  Unfotunately, it seems most of London's postcodes dont comply with that rule.  Furthermore, there doesnt seem to be a standard pattern I can look for and catch easily. Pit-yacker 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AWB and London 

message: I have added optional tags for Scotland, the distance from capital cities (London and Edinburgh) as per the existing Scotland place infobox.
I have also added an optional local name tag as per the Scotland place infobox. I cannot get it to show up however. Could someone look at this? My practice template (for Aberdeen) can be found at User:Bobbacon/Transport in Aberdeen (the name is for an old test page). Bobbacon 12:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its ok, you missed a "}}". I will try adding it back in. MRSC • Talk 12:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks, I couldn't work it out. Bobbacon 12:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be better if the field naming scheme was retained throughout. If we have all the fields in lower case and joined by underscores, it is easier to remember or anticipate the naming. MRSC • Talk 12:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I added distances from capital cities for Scotland, EdinburghDist and LondonDist do you think that the convention edinburgh_distance or edinburgh_dist should be used? Bobbacon 13:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that is great. Thanks. MRSC • Talk 08:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Optional tags

message: I'm struggling getting the right locations to be marked on this map. Locations have been pulled, generally westsouthwesterly. Examples:
*Hale, Greater Manchester is slightly too far south.
*Shaw and Crompton, Milnrow and Chadderton are slightly too far west.
There may be other examples.
I'm not a strong mathematician, but I'm sure this is solvable by altering my settings found at Template:Location map Greater Manchester. Jhamez84 14:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've since fixed this! And it looks good, even if I say so myself! Jhamez84 11:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gtr Manchester map settings 

message: Is there any reason why there isn't an option to have Borough instead of District where the borough is in a shire county?  OR have I missed how to do this?  Ksbrowntalk 21:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The honorific titles (City, Royal Borough and Borough) are not supported. On the previous template you could add a "district type" field which populated this. However, its use was very inconsistently applied. We could possibly automate this. MRSC • Talk 08:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  Ksbrowntalk 10:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boroughs that aren't London or Metropolitan 

message: I have had a request on my talk page from SuzanneKn about the problems when she has attempted to add the infobox to new articles.  She has asked if it is possible to stop the new-line occuring after constituent country in Ottershaw (contrasted with Onslow Village).  As far as I can tell the problem is with the length of the constituency name.  Is their a way of resolving this. FWIW, its an issue I have come across with varying degrees of severity and ability to resolve. Pit-yacker 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is because some of the captions are two words. I wonder if there is a way to force it not to wrap the text (by somehow treating the two words as one for example). MRSC • Talk 08:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could our old friend the Non-breaking space (Ctrl+Alt+Space) help? Pit-yacker 15:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has worked. :) MRSC • Talk 17:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request re: appearance (Constituency name length?) 

message: What's wrong with Byfleet? The infobox won't automate! Jhamez84 22:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a missing ] on a wikilink.Pit-yacker 23:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Jhamez84 12:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byfleet 

message: The following is lifted from my talk page. MRSC • Talk 17:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A call to comment on the new template was put on Template talk:Infobox England place. The discussions at Template talk:Infobox UK place from a range of editors achieved consensus that it should replace all England infoboxes. Can you give a single substantive reason why 10 articles in South Yorkshire should continue to use it when thousands now use Template talk:Infobox UK place without any problems? MRSC • Talk 16:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't use the thousands of articles don't use it argument as it is you and your comrades who've put it in. In this argument you can only use numbers pre your implementation fest: i.e. none. You're manipulating statistics. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: England infobox