Template talk:Infobox settlement

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox settlement template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

start

i do expect a Help text on this template somewhere. could someone tell me wher I can find that? JaapB (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

population_demonym

Resolved

Can this be enabled, please? Oc t ane ^{[improve me?]} 17.03.09 2121 (UTC)

In fact, I've prepared the code on another wiki, so it just needs to be plugged in:

{{#if:{{{population_demonym|}}}|
	<tr class="mergedrow">
		<td> - '''[[Demonym]]'''</td>
		<td>{{{population_demonym}}}</td>
	</tr>
}}

Yes, please enable it. Why is it currently disabled? Laurent (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Where do you want this new row inserted? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest after "other name", or failing that, after the population fields.. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in the archives and could only find support for this change. I'm rather surprised it was never enacted previously, as the discussions indicated support but always ended in just dying off. I've added it at the end of the Population section. Shereth 14:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox CityIT

Anyone see any reason why {{Infobox CityIT}} cannot be merged here? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Most parameters are shared and the rest are irrelevant or unnecessary. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 17:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add "coordinates_footnotes" parameter & move "footnotes" parameter to bottom of infobox

{{editprotected}} I have implemented the following suggestions at Template:Infobox settlement/sandbox and updated Template:Infobox settlement/testcases to show the results.

Please add a coordinates_footnotes parameter to allow documenting the source of coordinates used in the template. The naming of this parameter follows the style used by existing parameters such as government_footnotes, area_footnotes, elevation_footnotes, population_footnotes, etc. This is usually done for fields where the <ref> cannot be directly appended to the data, as is the case with the coordinates. This change would be very helpful when attempting to maintain existing references while eliminating duplicate sets of coordinates within an article.
Please remove "font-size: smaller;" from the style used on the coordinates. The default font size is small enough to fit and easier to read, plus it looks better when using a footnote.
Please move the table row for footnotes to the bottom of the infobox, below the row containing website. This is a standard format used by most infoboxes.

The changes required can be found in this diff and implemented by copying that sandbox code. -- Zyxw (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Congressional district?

Is there a convention for how this infobox could include a U.S. settlement's congressional district? Thanks. 67.101.6.42 (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use "subdivision_type/subdivision_name." You can use them up to 7 times through subdivision_type6/subdivision_name6. The first three are reserved for Country, State, County, and the fourth is usually used if there is a sub-county government, such as a civil township. Just add Congressional district as the type and the district number as the name, and use the appropriate number 3, 4, 5, or 6 (depending on how many instances of the field are already used. I have an example posted here. Hope that helps.DCmacnut <>

Thanks. 67.100.127.135 (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

inconsistency between example and documentaion regarding population estimates

In the documentation section Template:Infobox settlement#Population, Demographics, the description of the population_total parameter is Actual population (see below for estimates) and similarly, population_as_of has The year for the population total (usually a census year). Below, are the parameters population_est and pop_est_as_of. The example given at the end however, uses the 2008 population estimate in the population_total parameter. Is this a good example to illustrate usage? If there are separate parameters to distinguish between an actual census and population estimates, shouldn't the example follow suit?

On a side note, the pop_est_as_of parameter doesn't format very well. For example, in this revision, there the estimate year causes a bad line break that makes it look as though the estimate is a heading for the Urban and Metro figures that follow, rather than for the estimate, which is on the preceding line. older ≠ wiser 12:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is any way to tell how many instances of the template actually use the population_est parameter, as it seems to be rather underutilized. I did a real quick random survey of 10 cities in metro areas, assuming these to be among the most "updated" cities in the United States, and not one of them used population_est (one did have a note stating it was an estimte). It is difficult for me to speak of the situation outside the US, but within, the problem is complicated by the fact that for most intents and purposes, the annual Census estimates are treated as de facto official populations. They are used, for example, by federal, state and local governments for the purpose of allocating certain funds. The fact that governments at all levels use these figures gives them a large amount of currency as being "official". This is compounded by the fact that the parameter "population_total" is described as being "Actual", the term carrying with it a connotation of being current, when the 2000 Census figures are far from current and "actual". Even changing the template documentation is unlikely to result in any kind of visible change in how templates are used; the behavior of treating estimates as being "official" figures is rather deeply rooted, as well as having been common practice for several years. I am uncertain what can or should be done about it. Shereth 14:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons

Is it possible to add field Wikimedia Commons, to link to images of settlement?--WlaKom (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you mock up a version in the sandbox? It would be helpful to see what you are asking for. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see it inside infobox. User:WlaKom/Sanbox/Sandbox-village (test)--WlaKom (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure what is being requested here. Is it possible to elaborate? Shereth 17:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I use

{{commonscat|Łoje|Łoje (gmina Sieciechów)}} below Infobox.

I would like to to see inside Infobox.:

|commons             =  Category:Łoje (gmina Sieciechów)
|website             =

--WlaKom (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other infoboxes which include the commonscat inside the infobox? It would be helpful to see an example currently in use. Plastikspork (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it would be useful to see what it looks like in the infobox, but I question whether such a change is needed. Isn't commonscat usually reserved for the External Link section of the article? I think adding it to the infobox would make the infobox more cluttered than it already is. Then again, if it could be added without detracting from the infobox, I'm open to the suggestion.DCmacnut <> 21:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All villages in Gmina_Sieciechów. I found this option in other articles. I can't recall which ones right now. I don't know how to change width of the Wikimedia Commons box. Link to Wikimedia Commons inside Infobox is very popular in many infoboxes. --WlaKom (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added, temporary, line inside Infobox

{{#if: {{{commons<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |<tr><th bgcolor="#eeeeee">[[Image:Wikimedia Commons favicon.png]] Wikimedia Commons</th><td bgcolor="#eeeeee">[[commons:Category:Łoje|Łoje]]</td></tr>}}

to show you expected display.

I clicked on the first few and it appears they all included the commonscat in the external links section. Plastikspork (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added all of them. But I prefer, as I said before, eliminate use of the commonscat and have commons within Infobox.--WlaKom (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. However, it appears that the convention is to include commonscat in the external links section. Adding it to the infobox would seem to be non-standard. Plastikspork (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what are you taking about? Did your read the above text?--WlaKom (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Polish wiki versions of those pages (e.g. pl:Mozolice_Duże) have what WlaKom wants. Still, I think Plastikspork has understood perfectly well. Kanguole 22:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kanguole, that's exactly the type of thing that I was asking for. Is there an example of this format in use on the English Wikipedia? I am just concerned with using some format inconsistent with convention, e.g., WP:LAYOUT. Thanks again. Plastikspork (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added, temporary, extra code inside Infobox for Mozolice Duże:

{{#if: {{{commons<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} |<tr><th bgcolor="#eeeeee">[[Image:Wikimedia Commons favicon.png]] Wikimedia Commons</th><td bgcolor="#eeeeee">[[commons:Category:Gmina Sieciechów|Gmina Sieciechów]]</td></tr>}}

to show you what I expect to be display.--WlaKom (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can a regular expression test be incorporated into image_map? For example if the text is "commons:File:Franklin County Washington Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Pasco Highlighted.svg" the test will reveal that it starts with "commons:File:". This would then abort the append function that adds "File:" at the beginning of the text. -- allen四names 16:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with using File:Franklin County Washington Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Pasco Highlighted.svg? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Db-f8 and WP:CSD -- allen四names 16:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like files from commons are being transcluded. My mistake. -- allen四names 17:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A regular expression test could still be useful if you are not going to update the documentation to instruct users of the template not to append "File:" (et al.) to the filename being used. -- allen四names 17:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rounding

Forgive me if this has been covered, but I did a <CTL>F search on the article page for "round" and got nothing. If you look at the infobox in the article Ziketan Town, you'll see under "Area" where 3,000 square kilometers has been converted to square miles as 1,158.3. This is obviously wrong (even if we don't consider the 3,000 to be a rough figure, which it almost certainly is). The rounding should not give any decimal places, it should correspond to the input precision and output 1,160 or even 1,200. I wonder if there can't be a switch or something in the template. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some default for tenths of square miles in the precision for the conversion. A sensible way to override this would be to allow for the precision to be set, but there are already way too many parameters. In fact, it would seem almost better to have total_area as a field without units and use convert templates within the articles, but this would break other stuff (like population density). To solve your particular problem, there is a somewhat user-trusting solution, which is that you can specify both km2 and mi2. I have done this in the article in question, but would say this should only be done on a case-by-case basis. The whole significant figures thing is a bit of a nightmare for unit conversion. Plastikspork (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have added Ziketan Town to the testcases page if anyone wants to try to come up with a more elegant solution to the significant figures problem. Plastikspork (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if the main unit input doesn't have decimals, the output shouldn't either. However, 3,000 square km is not 1,200 sq miles. If we are going to round, shouldn't we go by normal rounding standards and just drop the decimal and go with 1,158 sq miles? I think precision in the conversion should be more important than how it looks. For example this convert 3,000 square kilometres (1,200 sq mi) does not match this convert 1,200 square miles (3,100 km²). That is too big a difference to be insignificant.DCmacnut <> 18:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The problem is that no error bars are provided with the initial number. We don't know how many significant figures are being represented by 3000. I suppose this is why we have a sig fig option for templates like {{convert}}. In this particular case, the opening lead section used 1200 as the conversion. It sounds like some sort of an approx disclaimer is needed. Plastikspork (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The presence or absence of numbers to the right of the decimal point isn't nearly the whole story. Two kilometers is not one mile but 1.2 miles. There is a big enough discrepancy between the two units to make trouble. Same goes for feet-to-meters. It is a difficult problem, and I was mostly asking whether there wasn't a switch already that I didn't know about, as I'm used the the deliciously intricate "convert" template. I will go ahead and brute-force it in the future in infoboxes, problem solved, as far as I am concerned. Thanks all. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor code cleanup

{{editprotected}}

Requesting sync with the sandbox for some minor code cleanup. Amongst other things, the present code includes tab characters, which is obviously a silly idea for files meant to be edited in a Web browser. No output changes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same, but I got rid of the remaining wikisintax and used full HTML (there are still some '''). No visible output changes. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 22:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good. I'll let another admin do a review and make the edit. — RockMFR 22:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify another change I made: now the twin2 to twin9 parameters don't work if twin1 is unused, so the data is not shown without the label "List of twin...". Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 01:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done I noticed that as well while I was performing the request, but I don't think it's a problem. If it is a problem, it's pretty easy to just move the '}}' up to before the if twin2 statement. Thanks for fixing the tags. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 01:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking mayor's name automatically

What's the difference between the infobox as used in Page, Arizona and Belle Center, Ohio? Neither has [[ ]] around the mayor's name, but Page's mayor's name is linked (to the wrong person), while Belle Center's mayor's name isn't. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template uses the #ifexist syntax, essentially checking if an article with the same name as the mayor exists, in which case it wikilinks it. This probably should not be the default behavior, given the Page example, as the target is not always the correct one. Shereth 14:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can disable the autolinking by inserting a   character in the name. I would be happy to disable autolinking completely, but we should probably see if anyone else cares. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit esoteric in terms of a "fix". We can't expect most editors are going to know the linking is triggered automatically, nor that sneaking whitespace into the entry is going to disable it - that information is buried deep in the template documentation (which is already voluminous). Automatic linking should not be enabled by default, as editors should not be expected to preemptively disable incorrect links. Given that most of the information is not automatically wikilinked, we should expect the "leader" parameter to behave the same way. Shereth 16:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with disabling it; if the mayor is notable, s/he will likely be linked in the article as well as in the infobox, so the removal of links in the infobox won't likely be a problem. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I will go ahead and make the change. If someone objects, feel free to revert. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two more to merge?

How easy would it be to merge {{Infobox Swiss town}} and {{Infobox U.S. state}} into this one? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say swiss town would be very easy. In both cases, one could start by converting the backend to use this template, and then discuss substitution of the template, which would complete the conversion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've TfD'd them. Stand by! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Standardisation on {{Infobox settlement}}

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Standardisation on Infobox settlement for wider discussion about this template. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, discuss?

In case you haven't noticed, some of you guys have royally pissed a whole lot of people off by pointlessly nominating a number of heavily used templates for deletion, without bothering to enter into any discussion over how migration might be achieved. And it isn't working for you, because you're losing. Maybe it is time to try a new approach, like, maybe, engaging people in discussion? Hesperian 06:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed, each deletion debate is a discussion, to which all are invited, via a notice on the nominated template's page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion, yes, but in the wrong forum and on the wrong topic. Do you really believe that TfD is the best forum for hashing out a complex migration process? No, you already figured out the details of that, didn't you? Input is unwelcome on that point. The whole point of TfD was to constrain discussion. Hesperian 00:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're simply posting lies. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith without jumping to conclusions and accusing people of lying. --[[::User:Sb617|Sb617]] (talk · contribs) 07:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith yourself; I have no assumed bad faith; not have I jumped to any conclusion. I said that what was said - about my thoughts and actions - was a lie; which it is. Feel free to show otherwise. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And how is that model working out for you? How about taking regional editors into your confidence and working out a model for a successful migration first, rather than assuming that they are all ignorant hicks who don't know what's best for them. You may be entitled to jump straight into a TfD at the outset, but it isn't likely win you any support for your proposal. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you. Virtually all of those I've TFDd have been deleted, and quickly. A few, as expected, led to more protracted discussion, and a few of them are not yet deleted or merged, but most look like being done in due course, once everyone's concerns are (as they should of course be) satisfied. Overall, there's been a higher success rate than I originally anticipated. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is where it is a bit rich you calling Hesp a liar. You have basically backed his point. You are not interested in real input from regional editors, you merely want them out of the way so you can get on your predetermined program. All the decisions have been made here earlier and TfD is mere confirmation. Well, sorry, it doesn't work that way. This program of yours requires much wider discussion. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're posting lies, too. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith without jumping to conclusions and accusing people of lying. --[[::User:Sb617|Sb617]] (talk · contribs) 07:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith yourself; I have no assumed bad faith; not have I jumped to any conclusion. I said that what was said - about my thoughts and actions - was a lie; which it is. Feel free to show otherwise. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can this fight, whatever it may be about, take place on someone's talk page, or at least on some page to which it is relevant (or even better, not at all)?--Kotniski (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be just the appropriate page. It is unfortunate, that this issue is being dragged to a rather personal level. Unification of style and syntax a good thing (tm). Andy does not have a personal agenda here. --Dschwen 16:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Andy has a personal agenda here either, and I agree this has quickly devolved into personal attacks. B=ut the appropriate forum was to propose merging these myriad templates into this one on each template/project. Instead, he went straight to Tfd after one or two editors here thought they should be merged. No editor suggested deleting before they could be shown to be successfully incorporated here or removing redundancies. For his most recent Tfd for {{Template:Infobox U.S. state}}, an editor suggested working on how to incorporate the templates first, then work on merging. Going straight to Tfd without first finding a way to merge without disrupting the articles seems to be the wrong approach. We went through a long drawn out process of merging dozens of politician templates into {{Template:Infobox Officeholder}}. And in that case, none of the previous templates were deleted, but were instead redirected to the new one. If similar merges are proposed, this template should be the backend code for the infobox, but the other templates should be retained so we don't have hundreds of broken articles. (It's not just U.S. State, but swiss towns, australian towns, etc). Andy isn't the only one proposing these deletions, and I don't think he has any ill will other than a desire for standardization. But, I think there's a better way to go about this.DCmacnut <> 01:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over recent months, many redundant settlement templates have been merged into this one, via redirect or subst-and-deletion, using TfD, without drama. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 02:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That it's been done before is not a valid argument. Just because Tfd has been used "without drama" in the past doesn't mean it should be continued in all cases. I do not recall any discussion on this page about merging multiple templates. The fact that editors are objecting to thos approach should be a sign that a different approach should be sought. I agree that some redundant settlement templates can and should be merged here. However, {{Template:Infobox U.S. state}} should not be merged. A state is not a settlement. Also, the beauty of the way Infobox Officeholder was accomplished that it requred no edits to existing articles to ensure the infoboxes weren't broken. If two different infoboxes use the same fields/syntax that's one thing, but we need broader consensus. I want to WP:AGF about your desire for eliminating redundancies, but your apparently unwillingness to step back and try to find a different approach seems a bit like you aren't appying WP:AGF to our comments.DCmacnut <> 14:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Other stuff exists" is a red herring. "That it's been done before using method X" is a valid response to claims that method X is inapplicable. That you cannot recall discussion directly above where you are writing is perhaps something you, not I, need to address; as is your fallacious insinuation of bad faith. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your so called "discussion" consists of mass postings of Tfds on this page. That's not a legitimate merge discussion. I will admit that I did not care much about it until you decided that Infobox U.S. state should go away, too. Just because editors didn't raise objections before is irrelevent. We are objecting now. Posting mass Tfds is not how merges work. You propose the merge, reach consensus on the merger, perform the merge, then delete. Just because an editor doesn't agree with you doesn't mean we are assuming good faith. We object to the process, not the merging. I have said that standardization is good, but this is the wrong way to go about it. We need a different approach.DCmacnut <> 13:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice for templates calling this one

I made {{Uses Infobox settlement}}. It causes such templates to be in Category:Templates calling Infobox settlement. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 02:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts

Templates should be intuitive to use, easy to add fields to as the information becomes available and easy to alter when changes occur. While I agree the globalised templates are good for maintenance and work on some subject, BLP, Biota, movies, scientific etc they dont translate well to geo-political type articles because these need the ability for changes.

My other issue are that once a template use exceeds 1,000 article it becomes very difficult to get modifications by consensus not matter how necessary because they cause a lot of down stream work for other editors and a change to this template to suit one region will see 10's of 1,000's needing reviews and possible adjustment.

Ideally these templates should be in a nested format rather than one large template that way a standard visual layout can be used but localisations can be implemented, and when changes like the proposing to include as specific style of map occurs it be a scaled/stepped introduction without disturbing the wider community.

On a very basic level templates make editing for new editors difficult even basic templates and as this complexity risess so does the bar for people to participate. I work on the basis if I need to spend time working out how a template works then someone without my experience on wiki is really going to struggle at best they'll do what they think is needed and create work for someone to fix at worse they wont even bother meaning we miss out on that piece of information. Gnan garra 03:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"once a template use exceeds 1,000 article it becomes very difficult to get modifications by consensus": I suspect that there is no evidence to support this remarkable assertion.

" a change to this template to suit one region will see 10's of 1,000's needing reviews and possible adjustment": given the very many changes and the almost continual improvements made to this template, can you cite a case where this has been a problem?

"without disturbing the wider community": could just as easily read "without consulting the wider community".

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pigsonthewing you raise three points;

see Templates for deletion - 2009 September 6, Infobox Australian Place for how difficult it is to make changes that affect 1,000's of articles.
Every time that this template has been used to replace another there has been changes surely someone is checking the articles already using the template to ensure it hasnt affected them.
As for "without disturbing the wider community": could just as easily read "without consulting the wider community" well your welcome to cherry pick words from my comment but when you do please keep the context in tact I said that changes are done through discussion, then a systematic implementation, in other words work with the community constructively.

I can see from your response that WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are still in a grey area when it comes to discussing this template and seeking a way forward(alternative suggestions) to resolve issues. Gnan garra 11:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Infobox Australian Place}} demonstrates nothing of the sort. It only demonstrates the awesome power of the filibuster. The long history of {{Infobox settlement}} (and many others) will show that a clear precedent for making changes by consensus to high-visibility templates. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional parameters

I have seen other settlement infoboxes with a parameter for (and label linked to) Geocode. Other settlement infoboxes, for example {{Infobox Solomon Islands Province}}, have the parameters capital, arearank, populationrank & densityrank. Yet others have ISO 3166 code. I'd like to add them here, not least to facilitate future mergers; or using this as a base template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last call for comments, before I propose code changes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And anthem. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For capital, use seat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Please change [lengthy code change request redacted - change was made in this edit ] Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to do this just now, because I'm honestly afraid I'm going to mess this template up. Could you make a copy of the template on a subpage somewhere, with the changes you want done? That way we can just copy all of the code at once and not have to worry about making sure we're replacing the right thing. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a diff using the sandbox would be a good start. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox is currently in use for another purpose; but in any case these are relatively minor changes, replicating existing logic with new parameter names.. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a diff anywhere (perhaps in your own userspace) would be helpful. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here you go [link to {{db-self}} page redacted]. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Although you may consider abbreviating some of the field names? Population density rank may be better abbreviated as 'Pop. density rank' or something. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Happy to do so if others wish, but I thought it better to maintain consistency with, for example, the other population_* fields. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 06:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Shall we convert this template to use {{Infobox}}? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently possible without layout changes, due to the way that per-row styles are applied ({{infobox}} doesn't support per-row styles, apparently by design). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need per-row styles? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not, but this will have to be a two-step process - firstly, reworking the template to be presentable without the extra styling, and then transitioning across once that's complete. As the first step will involve non-trivial style changes it will likely generate the usual bikeshedding, so it's not high on my todo list right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked the source code, and I can't see any styles applied to rows. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the <tr class="mergedtoprow"> declarations, which eliminate horizontal separators between various rows for the sake of grouping. I suppose that theoretically these could be supported using the {{{classX}}} parameters, but that's mixing content and presentation. Still, you're right that it may be able to convert the template straight across; I'll give it a shot. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay: as can be seen from the test cases page (still a lot to do, but it's good enough to illustrate the problem right now) the classes used to merge rows don't work in {{infobox}}. This isn't necessarily the end of the world, but does mean that changes will be required either to {{infobox}} or to this template's styling to complete the transition. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classes, as opposed to styles, can be applied to rows using {{Infobox}}'s titleclass, aboveclass, rowclass(n) and belowclass parameters. PLease see here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Cheers for that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

165K transclusions

The template transclusion counter found 165033 transclusions of this infobox, just now! Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And just now; 165239 - an impressive growth rate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix needed

{{editprotected}} Please decap "Iso_code". Apologies if that was my error. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — RockMFR 00:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; that's working, now. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples in documentation

Based on some of the recent TfD concerns about whether this template is appropriate for "higher-level" administrative divisions (counties, provinces, etc.), I wonder if it might help to add some specific examples in the documentation. For an example of what it might look like, check out Template:Infobox_Place_Ireland/doc. The main documentation page for this template is already rather long, so perhaps it would need to go on a sub-page, but still it would be nice to have examples of several different uses so that it isn't quite so abstract. Some people just don't "get it" until they see a specific case, and while we can always point them to articles that use the template, having it in documentation helps provide a stable, clean place to direct them. --RL0919 (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's a redundant template, ripe for deletion… ;-) Seriously; yes, I'd be happy to help with that, maybe in a day or two. In the short term, we could compile a list of articles of different types, using this template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a merger is ultimately performed, would it be possible to use specific redirects for templates currently in use, along the lines of the generic redirects being created now? I guess when you get right down to it, that is my chief concern (other than my past comments on the process). I supported the standardization at {{Infobox Officeholder}}, and could support it here if we keep region-specific templates as redirects. Admittedly, many region templates aren't even used right now, but that doesn't mean they won't be in the future. Some were created that probably shouldn't have been. I for one would never consider creating {{Infobox U.S. township}} since Settlement already did what I needed. Anyone would be free to use {{Infobox Settlement}} or the appropriate regional name, and the redirect would keep everyting behind the scenes. That also means articles using the old name wouldn't need to be updated to retain functionality unless an editor chooses.

For example, {{Infobox Officeholder}} maintains the functionality of all prior infoboxes and fields. The bulk of the code is behind the scenes even further to cut down on bulk. Region specific fields are also added as needed, such as Taoiseach, the Irish-language term for Prime Minister. There's {{Infobox Senator}} for U.S. Senators, {{Infobox MP}} for Ministers of Parliament, {{Infobox State Senator}}, {{Infobox US Ambassador}}, {{Infobox Indian politician}}, {{Infobox Eritrea Cabinet official}}, and so on. This system has worked very nicely with very few grumblings or objections from editors. s that something we could replicate here? The documentation also gives good examples of how a blank template for each one looks, only showing the fields relevant to that particular office.DCmacnut <> 20:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main issue would be whether the templates being merged already had a field structure similar to {{Infobox settlement}}. If they do, then a simple redirect might work. If not, then I believe they would have to be converted first, then redirected, which might be more trouble than it is worth to do for every localized variant. A partial compromise might be something like this: If a particular administrative division is called a 'province' (for example) then replace the local template ("Infobox countryname province" or whatever) with {{Infobox province}} instead of {{Infobox settlement}}. This would avoid confusion over the word 'settlement'. We could also potentially provide streamlined code examples similar to those for {{Infobox officeholder}}, only showing the fields that would be used for a province, district, etc. --RL0919 (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blank_info

Any idea why {{{blank_info}}} is showing in thw last-but-two section of the Infobox on Keelung? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blank_info_sec1 is unspecified. That code is horrific right now, admittedly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this fixed it, but you'd expect that not to mater. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population

There needs to be a simple "population" field. Not total or estimated - just population. Therefore I am adding it. Rich Farmbrough, 15:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

coordinates_display

Right now the coordinates are passed to {{Geobox coor}}, which allows for display either inline or inline,title, but no option for only title. Would it be possible to allow only display in the title if "coordinates_display" is set to something? If so, what should that keyword be? title, onlytitle, titleonly, title only, no inline, noinline, ...? I am happy to make the change if people are agreeable. Currently, any value in coordinates_display is treated as 'inline,title'. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point to personalize this even more. I think that 'inline,title' should be the default, or even get rid of "coordinates_display" and always show the coords as 'inline,title'. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 19:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the current usage is somewhat misleading, and pointless. If you set coordinates_display to anything, then it gives you "inline,title". If you set it to nothing, then it gives you inline. There is no way to use the pushpin map without setting the coordinates, which makes it impossible to use the pushpin map, without having the coordinates appear. Not everyone is of the opinion that the coordinates should always appear in the infobox. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{CountryAbbr}} and excessive transclusion

{{CountryAbbr}}, which is transcluded with this template, transcludes 570 other templates. This causes almost all the pages that transclude this template to parse slowly, makes editting and preview slow, and makes the list of transcluded templates under the edit box almost useless. It already inserts 73,292,880 unnecessary and useless rows in the template links table in the database, and once used in all the infobox calls, that number will rise to well over a hundred million.

The template is used to figure out the country and region codes, but it does it in a very complicated way from quite unreliable input. This information should instead be entered as parameters into the template calls on each of the 170,000+ articles, preferably by a bot that would subst the CountryAbbr template. Zocky | picture popups 12:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. I do a lot of flag template work, and WhatLinksHere is essentially unusable for flag templates that are transcluded from here or from {{CountryAbbr2}} etc. I fully agree that CountryAbbr is unreliable, as the input for the subdivision_name and subdivision_name1 parameters is quite variable—sometimes the names are wikilinked, sometimes not, and there are many variations of flag renderings. I think it is poor coding style (speaking as a software engineer) to parse parameter A—which has no syntax restrictions—to figure out a value for parameter B, instead of just specifying parameter B directly. Therefore, instead of substing this template, I would strongly support a bot that went through all transclusions of this template to specifically add coordinates_type = type:city_region:XX-YY, and then remove these "Abbr" templates altogether. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be even better if they had |country_code=XX|region_code=YY. that way the values could be used for other useful things, like deciding which {{location map}} to use. Zocky | picture popups 19:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had thought about those ideas a few minutes after I hit "Save page". ;) It could also be used for instances where {{Infobox settlement}} is used for second-level administrative divisions, and we already have the iso_code parameter for that, so perhaps we could make use of that existing parameter for cities etc. as well. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. I just noticed that the London geocoordinates don't have a region code because {{CountryAbbr}} didn't recogize the subdivision_name. Would someone care to take this to Wikipedia:Bot requests? --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SQ Miles

How do I get sq miles to show up first for the area and have sq km in parenthesis? CTJF83 chat 17:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use "unit_pref = Imperial". Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, CTJF83 chat 03:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use to illustrate non-settlement articles?

A user has recently been adding lots of {{infobox settlement}}s to the article Jewish philosophy, to illustrate where each of the philosophers discussed in the article came from.

The result is not unattractive, but I suspect there may be lots of hidden things coded into this template that classify the page using it as a city, etc.

Is there a variant, that would be safe to use on non-settlement articles, which would still produce the pushpin map and titling, but without any hidden side effects? Jheald (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Location map}} is the template used to display the pushpin map without all of the unecessary overhead used by this template. Personally, I find the slew of pushpin maps on the article in question to be cumbersome and distracting, and the pushpin style map is not always "correct". The Kingdom of Aragon is not well illustrated with a pushpin style map, for example. Wouldn't it be better to just remove the maps and let people curious about these locations navigate to them via wikilinks? Shereth 20:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful comments. In defense of using {{infobox settlement}}s I want to point out that the maps, as they presently illustrate contemporary locations of historic Jewish Communities, contain links to the appropriate wiki pages that allow users to find and browse, for instance, the Kingdom of Aragon historic maps, history, polity and events; in the same breath I want to also point out that this is meant to illustrate to the reader the constant ebb-and-flow of boudaries which define Kingdoms, Caliphates, and Archbishoprics in medieval Iberian Peninsula from 800 CE until Alhambra Decree. A clear example of this is in Candia, Republic of Venice, which is today known as Heraklion, Crete - a user might not otherwise know that the protections granted Jews by Republic of Venice extended to this presetn-day Greek Island - thus explaining how a Rabbi found this remote outpost so attractive. I hope this appropriately explains my use of {{infobox settlement}}s on Jewish Philosophy and persuades you to allow its use in this context. Jimharlow99 (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, we neither allow nor disallow the use of this template on pages - it is up to the individual editors of the page in question (in this case, you among others) who determine what templates are appropriate for use on the page. There are a very few exceptions for certain administrative templates, but overall nobody owns a template and nobody decides where it may or may not appear. I was just giving some advice/an opinion. Cheers, Shereth 14:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the usual thing is to use Infobox templates only in articles that the infobox is about. This among other things helps with machine extraction of data. Using {{location map}} seems more appropriate in this instance. Zocky | picture popups 01:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input - I'll get started re-tooling the maps to use the {{location map}} template - you are correct in that it seems more appropriate in this instance given the fact that I can put more than a single settlement on a map AND place the map within the page at my own discretion. I should be finished changing out the template on Monday afternoon.Jimharlow99 (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix UTC offset

{{editprotected}}

Currently, if the UTC offsets are not specified then this template produces unusual output. This prevents {{tz}} from being used to denote the time zone. Fix for this is to replace the following code:

<td>{{{timezone1|{{{timezone}}}}}} ([[UTC{{{utc_offset1|{{{utc_offset}}}}}}]])</td>{{#if:{{{timezone2|}}}|</tr>
<tr class="mergedrow">
<th> </th>
<td>{{{timezone2}}} ([[UTC{{{utc_offset2}}}]])</td>}}

with:

<td>{{{timezone1|{{{timezone}}}}}} {{#if:{{{utc_offset1|{{{utc_offset|}}} }}}|([[UTC{{{utc_offset1|{{{utc_offset}}}}}}]])}}</td>{{#if:{{{timezone2|}}}|</tr>
<tr class="mergedrow">
<th> </th>
<td>{{{timezone2}}} {{#if:{{{utc_offset2|{{{utc_offset2|}}} }}}|([[UTC{{{utc_offset2|{{{utc_offset2}}}}}}]])}}</td>}}

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Shereth 14:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]