Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 3

message: I've started on Wales. They seem to convert quite easy but most of the places do not seem to have lat/lon so they need to have an empty map_type= included to stop  appearing on the article. MRSC • Talk 20:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about places which have a Welsh map on them, such as Porthmadog. Should they be left or replaced with the british isles map. Personally I would prefer the latter seem as the Welsh maps are not used consistantly. G-Man * 20:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gwynedd is on 15 articles and Dyfed is supported but unused. As there is such limited use I say we move over to UK maps. If localised maps are required later it will not be difficult to add as the lat/lon data is there, all that is needed is to change the map_type and  implement an extra map here. MRSC • Talk 20:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have uploaded a new version of the settings that adds map_type in on every change (whether there is one or not. So if it is already there it will need deleteing).  On the subject of maps, when I have looked through User:Owain's contributions in the past there is at least one user who has an issue with him adding (as opposed to recplacing Welsh maps with) UK maps to Welsh articles.  Therefore, it might be an idea to leave the map status as it is for now Pit-yacker 20:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it happens, I had a change of heart while updating and left the bespoke local maps in the map_type field. MRSC • Talk 21:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also watch out for lots of +44-xxx dial codes. MRSC • Talk 21:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we should keep the Wales maps with the articles that already use them or have one avaliable to them. It is better to see a city/town within Wales, rather than in the whole of the UK.- Nick C 17:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes. I have fairly neutral ideas about what mapping features should be enabled for Wales. Let's see what the opinion is of editors in that area. MRSC • Talk 21:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So how should Wales be approached?  Should we sell the new template first?  Who do we go to?  As an example of a box I had previously converted Wrexham.  Beyond the semi-automated conversion, I had attempted to fill out many fields missing from the old box.  My thinking being that it is more likely to be accepted if the customisations which actually make it "more Welsh" than the old box are used Pit-yacker 15:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started converting Wales articles again now the TFD is over. I've accomodated any requests that have come up on this talk page (there is one further down about languages). MRSC • Talk 16:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wales

message: The template seems really squised up. Since I'm not really good with complex template syntax, maybe it would be possible for someone to: make the template slightly larger and the parameters more spaced out (larger breaks and slightly bigger font) and to make the images bigger? It's quite hard to tell (with England places) where the dot is supposed to be because it's disproportional to the size of the map. Geoking66 22:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The initial motivation to construct this template was criticism that the earlier templates were too spaced out and occupied too much space. In terms of dimensions, layout and basic design there is no difference between this template and the widely used . MRSC • Talk 22:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aesthetics 

message: Why does the Metropolitan borough link on articles go to Districts of England. Wouldnt it be better if it went straight to the metropolitan borough article? Same applies to Non-metropolitan districts. G-Man * 23:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thinking was you can see like-for-like on the same level, as Districts of England is an overview article. MRSC • Talk 23:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm the problem is, on articles where places are part of a non-met district. It merely has a link to 'district' and links to Districts of England, that doesn't explain to the layman who isn't familiar with uk local government divisions, what type of district the place is actually in. How are they surposed to guess that it's a non-met? G-Man * 21:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I see what you mean. Perhaps change the link to go to that section of the Districts of England article. The benefit of going to Districts of England is that it makes clear that not all districts are say non-met, which one might assume with no prior knowledge of local government districts. MRSC • Talk 08:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: District question

message: Is it possible we can accomodate a map for the West Midlands into the UK infobox? It contains the UK's second largest connurbation, and so I think it is wholly appropriate for an upload to this infobox, to bring the West Mids inline with other metropolitan areas. I can't see there being any objections, but thought it best to post here first rather than upload a map I've created directly to the syntax without due notice. ...Not that I know how to do it anyway!... Jhamez84 08:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes please add-in. It is great to see all these local maps included. MRSC • Talk 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how exactly. Previous versions I've uploaded merely replaced existing imagery as part of an already established syntax framework - this one will be brand new. These maps appear to be popular (Cheshire and South Yorkshire members requesting them next), and so if someone does have the knowhow, I'd appreciate it if they could post to me how I can do it next time (or post the link to the official instructions?). Jhamez84 17:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slight criticism. Coventry looks all wrong. It makes it look as if there's a rural area within the south of Coventry city boundary, which there isn't. G-Man * 21:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The West Midlands map is wired up in this template.  It is ready to be used, without needing further change in this template as soon as the Location map template for West Midlands is correctly callibrated. (see test Here (under large map) Pit-yacker 21:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've ammended some of the discrepancies regarding the conurbation not aligning with the county boundaries - should be fixed now, but I'm always welcome to feedback. Jhamez84 00:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Midlands map 

message: In regards to a now archived discussion, distance fields for Cardiff and Belfast are now added. Bobbacon 08:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: City Distances

message: The maps have all gone right justified. I think this might be a problem caused at Template:Location map, but I've not sure. MRSC • Talk 14:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We seem to have a box around Scotland that wasn't there before. MRSC • Talk 19:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still there today. Anyone any idea why? MRSC • Talk 05:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a problem at :Template:Location map. MRSC • Talk 05:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps

message: This template was deprecated, and this was requested as its replacement; however, there were a few concerns as to how to adjust this infobox, so the other one had similar functionality. Whenever that is done, and that template is deprecated, feel free to request its speedy deletion. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are about 5 articles using this template, so a manual swap of templates would be the right step. Information contained within that infobox that won't be in the UK version, should just be included in the article prose. Jhamez84 02:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tagged it for SD. Jhamez84 12:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now it's gone. I'll check the England and London versions if they are orphaned. If so, I'll tag these for SD. We need to convert the remaining Scotland, Ireland etc templates per the administrator before all can be deleted. Jhamez84 14:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Infobox Sheffield place]] 

message: The outcome of the debate as to whether or not to delete the various home-nation and city-region predecessors of this UK template closed with a consensus to delete. Thanks to all those who passed comment, regardless of standpoint. Roll-out should now be completed for all parts of the UK. Jhamez84 02:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Let's get on with the conversion task... MRSC • Talk 04:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates for Deletion 

message: I created a Scotland map and set it using the location of Aberdeen. However the dot seems to be static over Aberdeen and doesn't move accordingly to other places (particularly in Aberdeenshire places such as Crimond and Cornhill, Aberdeenshire). If anyone knows how to sort it that would be great as it is going to cause problems I think as the template is rolled out. The code is found at :Template:Location map Scotland. Bobbacon 07:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There appears to be some problems generally with images disappearing this morning, perhaps because of database problems. MRSC • Talk 08:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, meant Bobbacon! --Bill Reid | Talk 16:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a peek in your sandbox and corrected a field which generates the services. Someone more map-orientated may be able to help with the red dot. MRSC • Talk 16:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers! Thanks for that. --Bill Reid | Talk 18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That same person would be of great help for the Template:Location map West Midlands! I can't work this one out! Jhamez84 17:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the services are still wrong the entire Strathclyde council areas where listed under Lothian and Borders for the fire services I have corrected them but the map is still not working I was going to apply the template to Glasgow but the maps is showing the location of Glasgow as being just south of Aberdeen the template should not be rolled out unless it it fixed. --Barry O'Brien  entretien 22:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Kalan keeps fiddling with Template:Location map.  It is causing problems all over Wikipedia.  The best place to raise such map issues is probably Template_talk:Location_map Pit-yacker 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes the effect of changes to the Template:Location map are not updated on the articles until an edit (or null edit) is made. For the services, let us know a specific locality that is not working and what it should be showing, so the look-up table can be updated. MRSC • Talk 12:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed the services but see here the map is way off location, and I have no idea how to fix that --Barry O'Brien  entretien 05:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, its better but not accurate enough.  It puts Lossiemouth not by the Moray Firth but well and truly in it. --Bill Reid | Talk 10:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  I used Duncasby Head and the Mull of Kintyre to calculate the coords, and they come out OK.  You can see all three here.  Mr Stephen 12:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lossiemouth, Buckie, Fraserburgh are all drowned while Inverness and Stornaway have been moved inland; strangely, Wick and Kirkwall seems to be correct.  A bit of tweaking still needed.--Bill Reid | Talk 13:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the map may have been rotated a bit -is that possible?  The way I have calibrated it, stuff on a line joining Kintyre & John o'Groats should be OK, stuff to the right will go up & right, stuff to the left will go down and left.  We need a map in (checks) a cylindrical projection.  Mr Stephen 20:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scotland map

message: At the moment every type of location map that is supported by this template is transcluded into every article.  i.e. an article in London will get a copy of the Manchester location map transcluded.  AFAICT this cant be an efficient way to work. A few days ago I made a failed attempt to tweak this so that only the Location map that was needed was transcluded.  However, for some reason that I dont understand this fell over when an article had an empty map_type i.e:
 |map_type=
 
As more maps are added this is only going to get more inefficient.  Has anyone got any ideas on how to address this issue? Pit-yacker 21:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might automating the maps from various fields (such as metropolitan county) help? I think this would also stop the kind of strange edits seen to Horwich yesterday, resulting in the creation of the wholly inaccurate (per Google maps, Google Earth, Ordnance Survey, Streetmap, NASA WorldWind etc) and inappropriate :Image:Horwich in Greater Manchester.png. Automating maps has been discussed before now. Jhamez84 02:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought this would be a good idea but there is the problem of places with bespoke maps set by map_type. Let's give it some thought, as it is not an urgent matter. MRSC • Talk 14:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location map transclusions - efficiency tweak 

message: I cant get Police and Fire to display on Loughor Pit-yacker 16:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Swansea added to the template. Regan123 16:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fire is ok, but Police still isnt showing? Pit-yacker 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with Conversion 

message: Did we get anywhere with implimenting the map for Cheshire? Jhamez84 21:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The map could still do with a bit more fine tuning, however, I am having a bit of trouble getting the callibration anymore accurate. The way I have been working so far is to find something that I can accurately locate on both maps.  Motorway junctions are good for this as I can get the lat/long to a matter of metres and the corresponding point on the map to (generally) a single pixel.  However there, arent any such junctions in the South of Cheshire which means I have had to try other things, which arent quite as accurate - getting an accurate match on the centre of a lake or town on both maps is a lot harder. Pit-yacker 21:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The position of the red dot for Mow Cop can be partly done very accurately as I have set it up -- it should be exactly on the county boundary. Its a bit further south than the other markers. I'll dig out some more possible accurate markers sometime today, but it will have to be this evening before I can turn my attention to it.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - I was deleyed and so took some time to place additional trial places in Pit-yacker's sandbox. I've added positions exactly on the border, and mostly ones where county boundaries meet (e.g., Ches/Shrop/Staffs and Wales/Shrop/Ches border points). Thye all tend to be down in the south of the county, and so give a broad spread of positions on which to judge precision. On the whole, I think it is now as best as may be possible, but others may disagree. Agreed? If so, I'll put some of the examples on the Cheshire WikiProject's talk pages to allow comments, and then, if all is well, it can be "rolled out".  DDStretch  (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I personally dont seem to be able to get it more accurate.  Others are welcome to try.  Someone with better knowledge of Cheshire might be able to do a better job? Pit-yacker 18:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been trying to line this map up against another one, to try to match the features. I am *really* struggling to get them to match up. The coastline shapes and motorway routes do not seem to match particularly well - which would make it difficult to calibrate. e.g.New Brighton seems to be in the Sea. Now I'm convinced that this is the right way to go (in providing markers on a smaller-scale map), but if were suggesting that these are more accurate than the large-scale one, then surely we need to get the features on the map in the right places with respect to each other? I realise that simply tracing commercial or Ordnance Survey maps or something like Google Earth would be a breach of copyright - and the OS are extremely strict about this in particular - but there is another way to get open-source data for these that we can trace. Richard B 15:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: New Brighton is no longer in Cheshire (not since 1974), and so I'm not sure that this mis-calibration is one that should be a major one to fix, unless we are going to indicate the position of places that once were in a county on the map. However, if it is currently placed in the sea, may be the "final tweak" that I have in mind would sort that out a bit? I think the map needs to be "stretched" a bit both east and west. Not much, but just a bit. I'm still not sure how to do the edits to manage this. And, how can we make the map usable in infoboxes. At the moment, if you add Cheshire as the map_type, you get nothing: no map at all.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise that New Brighton is not in Ceremonial Cheshire, but what I was saying is that the shape of the coastline and that of the motorways, does not match a couple of other mapping sources that I have. If these are not in the right place, then it will make the dots look like they're in the wrong place, even if the calibration is correct. Surely stretching it shouldn't make any difference - you could just change the calibration coordinates (i.e. latitude of the bottom of the map, lat of the top of the map, longitude of east and west sides of the map)? Richard B 16:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cheshire

message: Having a set of links reading, for instance:
:Police 	West Midlands
:Fire 	West Midlands
:Ambulance 	West Midlands
with different link targets on the right-hand side, is, I think, less than helpful to users. It would be better to have simply:
:Services:
:West Midlands Police
:West Midlands Fire Service
:West Midlands Ambulance Service
What do you think? Andy Mabbett 23:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this suggestion. --Steve 21:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing link text

message: Can I bring to your attention that some editors in and around, not Northern Ireland, not Cornwall, not Westmorland but the Scotland area are breaking the (overwhelming) consensus set with regards to the use of flags in the infobox - (e.g. ,  and ). Some edit summaries are misleading, and it seems to be the same editors repeating this process. 
As always in these situations, communal support would be highly beneficial. Or perhaps the syntax can be set so that this kind of revision is not possible?
Whilst I'm on the topic, we may also need (as this is a UK infobox talk page) to consider the use of  and . Some warring has occured of late. I think a consistent approach for the UK, whatever style it may be, would be the best approach. Jhamez84 15:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be mindful of the above is all I ask! Jhamez84 00:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: He didn't even vote! MRSC • Talk 07:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three centuries were a dream 

message: Should Template:Infobox Scottish island be nominated for deletion as part of this roll out? There are not many transclusions, though I respect that it iss island and not settlement based. If not, it may need some amendments to at least bring it inline with developments on the UK infobox (such as the flag issue, and new fields). If so, we need to take the right steps. I've also found the orphaned Template:Infobox Town Northern Ireland which I've nominated for deletion. Jhamez84 00:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template for deletion?

message: I've come across two situations where the parish population and urban area population are different. These are Henley-in-Arden and Kingsbury, Warwickshire. In both cases I've gone with the urban population in the infobox. I assume this is the right thing to do. Any thoughts? G-Man * 00:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've made the most sensible choice. The articles then deal with the two urban areas. In which case, you need to add the other (currently missing) civil parishes in the civil parish fields of the infobox. Finally, I would add the separate civil parish population figues in the section where you deal with demographics (It is effectively already done for Henley-in-Arden, though it might be clarified a bit more, and it can be found out and added for Kingsbury, Warwickshire.) Do you think that would help matters at all?  DDStretch  (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops - just noticed that Kingsbury, Warwickshire appears to occupy only part of its civil parish so that, if my understanding is right, its urban area is located entirely within one civil parish. In this case, it is less clear what should be done. If you want the article to be about both the village and the civil parish, I would tend to put the parish population in the infobox, and clarify the population for the urban area in the article (along with the populations of the other villages if these can be found out). It does need a bit of careful thought, I think.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In that case, I think you've done the right thing. Do you foresee there being any need for an article about the civil parish at all, in its own right?  DDStretch  (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Population question

message: Found Template:Infobox Newport electoral ward on my travels.  Should this be requested for a merge? Regan123 09:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd certainly welcome their deletion. Jhamez84 20:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another one to merge? 

message: 'fraid I was on wikibreak when this was going through the suggestions phase.  Couldn't see this idea mentioned in the archives though.  How about a pronunciation field to go along with those alternative languages ones?  I know several pages had them when using the old non-template table system...  Joe D (t) 21:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good idea, although we'd have to ensure some consistency in terms of IPA or spell-as-it's-said notation.  IPA is my preference since it's a universal standard.  Alternatively, we could have a field for each (since many people, including me, are not IPA-literate). Waggers 09:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested field: pronunciation 

message: The issue of maps is overtaking much of this talk page. As suggested earlier by another user, I've moved some content from this page to a centralised sub-page. I hope this helps. Any objections, please feel free to revert. Jhamez84 22:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps Sub-page

message: Um..the replacement of the old infobox at St Buryan with the new UK place one has lead to some inportant information being deleted (Village population, local council ward, dwellings, secondary settlements).  There is also now no distinction between St Buryan the parish, and St Buryan the village.  I did bring this up here when the template was being hammered out although it appears to have been overlooked...can we have a look at this again please and maybe include the option for these extra fields?Mammal4 13:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also raised the issue of parish information before. After coming to the conclusion that the new infobox is for places, not local administrative areas (such as civil parishes), I feel that a separate small parish infobox would be the best way forward. When you mention local council ward, do you mean the parish ward, the district council ward, or the county council ward (the three are separate entities, and, although in some cases, they may be coterminous, they must not be thought of as referring to the same things?) Such a parish infobox would fill in the missing piece in the local government hierarchy, since some kind of district council (or equivalent) infobox and county council (or equivalent) infobox already exists. It also needs to be small so that articles that combine together the settlement with the civil parish in the same article will not be over-burdened with infoboxes, and yet large enough so that separate articles for settlements and civil parish can be catered for.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to build the necessary, optional,  attributes - to achieve exactly the output you desire - into the existing template, than to create yet another. Andy Mabbett 10:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why. In some cases, there are articles already written which are about civil parishes and which are separate from the articles about the settlements which they contain. If these articles are to be catered for, then a lot of fields currently not optional might have to be made optional, which might not be good. I think there should be as many templates as are required to mirror or model the local government structures in place in the UK.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To fill in the history of why there are separate articles about civil parishes, I believe this is a result of the Insane Parish Project.  To answer your main point, I agree in principle but that raises the question of what to do about articles that are about both a village and the parish containing it, or even about towns and boroughs or cities and city districts. Waggers 10:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having written and researched extensively about St Buryan as well as other Cornish parishes, I would argue strongly against separating the village from the parish.  The information about the two aspects, especially the history, as so closely interwoven that to separate them would create two smaller, average, articles with duplicated information, rather than one good article (which is what St Buryan is currently).  Surely it would just make more sense to add a few optional fields to the place template?Mammal4 12:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For those places in Cornwall, it just seems to be those in Penwith that use this parish template. Other districts of Cornwall use the long parish template. My personal view is that if I look for the name of a town/village, then I want information about the town or village, and the parish is very much secondary.Richard B 13:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As you say, this is a personal view.  I would want to see the village info in the context of the parish.  The other parishes in Cornwall don't have any template at all not the long template, (as I started in Penwith with an aim to moving up through the county although I admittedly haven't got that far).  The districts as you say, which are a tier above the parishes and not the same thing at all, use the district template which is in the same style as the parish template.  The only other template in use is in parishes which have a large town such as St Austell or Truro, which have the UK place template, and ignore the parish information.Mammal4 13:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[St Buryan]]

message: I thought the maps were supposed to be ceremonial counties.  So why do we have a map for Southampton?  L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 17:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was there ever any agreement that they had to be ceremonial counties?  The So'ton map is useful because suburbs of the city would be indistinguishable from the city itself on a Hampshire map.  Joe D (t) 18:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be ceremonial counties that are used as standard for England. Simply to stop POV forking in the future. Manchester is covered adequately for example by the Greater Manchester map. Jhamez84 01:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, although that was a similar debate about Sheffield places.  The Soton map should at least look like the county maps.  L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 11:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to edit the map to bring it into line; I originally tried to copy the colour scheme from the others but found that using black roads and black place labels on  made the labels difficult to read.  As Joe says, suburbs of the city and neighbouring settlements would be indistinguishable from the city itself on a Hampshire map, and having both this infobox and a separate  on each article is just silly.  The common sense solution is to allow the Greater Southampton map to be included in this infobox. Waggers 11:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can anybody either edit the Soton map, or show it within Hants?  I'm useless with this kind of thing.  Maybe  can help?  L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 21:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as showing it within Hants is concerned, the map already contains :Image:EnglandSouthampton.png to show the location of the Greater Southampton area within England. Waggers 09:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be better to use this map only for suburbs, and the Hants map for areas outside Soton?  Contrast Rawmarsh with Millhouses, both in South Yorkshire.  L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 17:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could do, but even then it would be difficult to see the difference between, for example, Chartwell Green, West End and Hedge End, or between Otterbourne, Fair Oak, Colden Common, Twyford and Compton.  Is there a really good reason why location maps of boroughs are to be excluded from the infobox (other than the sheer volume of maps involved)? Waggers 20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there a rule that all maps must be confined to purely legal/administrative entities?  I haven't seen any such Wikipedia policy. Waggers 12:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I can tell.  However, I for one would oppose such a move.  It is the thin end of the wedge to [psuedo-???]political groups such as the "traditional" counties brigade using it as justification to try and remove any mention of modern boundaries from Wikipedia yet again. Pit-yacker 13:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps revisited 

message: Would it be possible for those Districts of England that are non-metropolitan districts with Borough status to have "Borough" as it's district field? (If that makes sense...)
E.G. On the Bacup article, rather than "District" we would see "Borough", in the infobox, because Rossendale has Borough status. 
It might be complicated to set-up to say the least, but I think it would be a great addition. Any thoughts? Jhamez84 01:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If possible, this would be a good option. At the moment, in Cheshire, at least one likes to be known as a "District" (City of Chester, which I need to address in changing some templates, and even the actual full name of the article needs altering since the original creator got it wrong) and others are known as "Boroughs", so some solution based on a simple county-switch may not always be guaranteed to work, though I don't know how many "splits" there are like this.  DDStretch  (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the same is true in Hampshire (New Forest is a district, most of the others are boroughs).  With that in mind, it may be better (and indeed technically easier) just to add a new district/borough parameter (defaulting to district as that's the current setting). Waggers 07:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you agree thusfar. The syntax in the infobox is beyond me I'm afraid. Though any thoughts about those districts with City status? - Do we have that field as Borough, District, City, or City district, or something else? City of Salford is a metropolitan district with City status; I'm not sure it technically has borough status. This could get complicated! Jhamez84 10:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it helps, the article says that City of Salford is a metropolitan borough.  Similarly, City of Winchester is a district.  I think we can get away with just "borough" or "district" as the name "City of..." itself should suffice to clarify the city-or-not issue. -- Waggers 11:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If wikipedia is to be believed (and given what I've read in some articles, I'm not sure about that at all without further evidence in any particular case) the following is a useful guide: Borough status in the United Kingdom#Modern borough status, which seems to suggest that "borough" and "district" would suffice and can be verified relatively easily.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm keener on automation personally, though the functionality appears to have the same end-product of course. How rare/common are districts of England without Borough status? I'm sure some counties would be wholly "borough-ed", which could aid a simpleer automation. Just an idea however. Jhamez84 01:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were some logic behind which are boroughs and which are districts, I'd be in favour of automation too.  Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules to follow, so automation is pretty much impossible in this case.  I've had a quick look at Hampshire, Berkshire, North Yorkshire and Surrey and none of those are 100 per cent borough or 100 per cent district.  I think counties that are wholly borough-ed or wholly district-ed are pretty rare if there are any at all. Waggers 07:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have a definitive source as to which districts have borough status? If we do, I think a switch would be the most suitable option. Jhamez84 23:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only one I've seen that goes anywhere near this is the wikipedia article I gave earlier (Borough status in the United Kingdom#Modern borough status), and I'm not sure how up to date or accurate that one is.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try looking at List of English districts and Non-metropolitan district. G-Man * 19:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The links you've given are useful, but not enormously. For example in the first link, next to many cities (for example Chester), is just has the word "City", which doesn't help too much. For the second link, the use of "Districts" is all right, but  it does not then  further go onto sub-categorize them into boroughs or not. Again, for example, Congleton and Macclesfield are two cases which are listed as Districts, but they are boroughs and are known as that in the official websites, as well as having Mayors (which seems to be one of the features of boroughs nowadays.)  DDStretch  (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  District or Borough? 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_UK_place&diff=124166931&oldid=123561740 that edit is making some article pages format really bad, but whenever I undo, pigsonthewing cancels it. Is there any way to stop him/her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.168.29 (talk) 19/4/07 21:24
: Could you provide examples please?  Please also note that we have a three revert rule (Pigsonthewing ought to know better).  Perhaps you would like to create an account?  L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 20:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you get into an edit war about this, could you provide examples of pages in which the formatting has become really bad as a result of the edit? Richard B 21:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Otherwise perhaps, Richard, you would kindly restore the template? Thank you. Note also that this user's first edit, immediately preceding these reverts was vandalism with a PA against me. Andy Mabbett 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be willing to assume good faith here - the new css classes might introduce a rendering problem in some browser or other.  Of course, the anon. might just need to clear his or her cache. — mholland (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There being no evidence of any corrupted templates, and only one, new anon poster claiming to have seen any, I request that this template be restored, ASAP. Andy Mabbett 11:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor in question's edit history would suggest their may be a problem with Rotherham.  I cant see anything wrong. Perhaps I am missing something or the page is cached? Pit-yacker 20:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: help

message: Can I bring to the attention of the editting community involved with this template that User:Mais oui! has demonstrated repeatedly breaking the overwhelming consensus we agreed and acheieved with regards to the use of flags in infoboxes.
He's aware of the consensus, and removes instances of the the Union Flag icon from some infoboxes citing WP:FLAGCRUFT (, , ) only to restore the Saltire for others.
We have examples such as this and this, with unhelpful edit summaries. 
Anyone willing to pass comment/provide support as we do have a codified consensus (which although I voted against it I am respecting)? Jhamez84 00:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's called having your cake and eating it too.  Although, User:Mais oui!'s position does seem consistent to me, if baffling.  I'll not pass comment on his removals per WP:FLAGCRUFT, since they all seem to be from other infoboxes.  The repeated addition of the St Andrew cross I would revert on sight if I came across it, per the consensus here.  The argument that "the flag is not part of the Infobox code; it is part of this article - if you want to remove it you had better reach a consensus with the editors of this article" just doesn't wash with me.  I disagree that consensus on a matter like this should be reached on a per article basis.  I think that in the case of Aberdeen, the suggestion could easily be construed as forum shopping on Mais oui!'s part. — mholland (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This pattern of editing from a long-standing and otherwise respected contributor is saddening. MRSC • Talk 07:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree - this behaviour is a bit worrying really. I too disagree with the argument that it each flag should be on an article basis - that just seems really daft, you'd have the same argument hundreds of times with no account of precedence. If on the other hand the flag was added into the 'article' and not the 'infobox', that might be a slightly different matter, but here we have consensus to remove flags from infoboxes regardless of 'code'. I will keep an eye out for any more instances. –MDCollins (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be a situation where logic-chopping is being used in order to indulge in Gaming the system. Very sad.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking consensus 

message: The invocation of this template at the article Reading, Berkshire displays null information for the police (should be Thames Valley Police) and fire service (should be Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service). 
As best I can tell from the documentation, the template is supposed to work this out, but is obviously failing to do so in this case. I have some sympathy with the template, as the the subject of the article falls across three unitary authorities, and I can see no generic way for the template to resolve this. But for a human author, it is easy because I know all three authorities have the same police and fire service.
The obvious way to resolve this would be an over-ride parameter. And the older template we used to use allowed this, but this one doesn't seem to. Or if it does, it isn't documented. Can one of the template authors sort this out, or I do need to revert to using the old style template. -- Chris j wood 18:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've sorted it out now. Somebody had used a intra-article (#) link for the Reading Borough parameter. Changed that and everything is fine now. -- Chris j wood 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does Reading have no police or fire cover