Template talk:Infobox settlement/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Redundancy in this infobox

I am perplexed at how much redundancy this infobox can display. See the Los Angeles article infobox for example. The first three lines contain an absurd amount of redundancy, reading:
Los Angeles, California
City
City of Los Angeles.
Firstly, this heading corresponds to neither the common nor the official name of the city, and it contains disambiguation not found in the article title. Normally when an article title does contain disambiguation, that disambiguation is not included in the infobox heading, e.g. Victoria (Australia) or Georgia (U.S. state). But in the case of US cities, and them alone as far as I can tell, we include disambiguation that is of no use at all. Secondly, not only is the name of the state given in the heading, but it is repeated in the very second parameter, which in the case of Los Angeles reads State: California. Then we have the random word "city" floating above the official name, which includes that word. Could this be made somewhat more sensible? Surtsicna (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This template is used in 550,000 articles. Unless you have uncovered a systemic problem that affects a significant portion of those articles, it might be best to start with modifications at the Los Angeles article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Jonesey95, that is a sound suggestion, but the problem is indeed systematic as it appears to be present in the articles about all US cities. Certainly all of my attempts to fix the Los Angeles infobox have been silently reverted. Surtsicna (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Then it looks like it is time for you to find the right venue to discuss the style of US city infoboxes. I didn't find a style guide for US city infoboxes, but there might be one. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States is probably a good place to ask. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I've considered that, but the place looks dead. Surtsicna (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline ? I would leave a note about the discussion at WT:CITIES. — hike395 (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

That one looks very active. Thank you! Surtsicna (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Surtsicna, there has been a discussion about this north of the border. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles/Archive 1#Redundancy model. Its RFC overwhelming was in favour of using all three parameters. In the US, surely there are numerous examples of a municipality’s official legal name excluding the actual term associated with its municipal status. Examples in Canada include Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, Northern Rockies Regional Municipality, District of Lakeland No. 521, and Dawson City among many more. We can’t exclude due to these exceptions and for those that aren’t exceptions we don’t know if they aren’t exceptions without actually using all three parameters. Hwy43 (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

One thing to add is communities in Canada do not include the province within the “name” parameter. Use of province/state in this parameter to match the article name or adhere to postal conventions for disambiguation has been deemed incorrect and redundant. Hwy43 (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Use of official name in Infobox Settlement

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Wording has been made clearer on this and other templates like it. Another discussion centered around its use on United States articles is still active (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Infobox redundancies) if anyone wishes to continue debate. DiscoA340 (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

---

The |official_name= parameter is optional but it I think that an official consensus needs to be reached on it as there seems to be pushback above its use. The official name usually says City of X or Town of X as that is the official name for them while the common name has a shortened version which usually says Town name or Town name, State or Province (Example of this in action.) I have been recently in contact with someone who is against the use of it and states that it's redundant and not useful. The problem is that the template offers no instructions on its use, so it seems that many different users have interpreted its use differently. Either the original template authors didn't factor in its use or didn't think it would be used as much as it currently is. The discussion here is not weather the cites call themselves City of X because almost all do; rather is it useful to include on Wikipedia. Keep in mind that the consensus from the discussion will affect thousands or articles across the United States and Canada.

1. Keep - No change, though its use is better written in the instructions.
2. Remove - Remove from template all together.
3. Change - Change the use of the parameter.

DiscoA340 (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

So, there is also an active discussion on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Multiple City and Town Pages in NC and SC). Is did not a bit heavy handed attempt to get a dispute settled? Beside that, the issue here is totally unclear to me. The Banner talk 18:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@The Banner Basically a shortened down version of the discussion is should the infobox look like this (with the official name) or like this (without.) I was also recommend to start this discussion by @Magnolia677 as this issue seems to be more chronic than my dispute. DiscoA340 (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

To add on, the instructed parameter use is very unclear and can be interpreted in different ways. Hopefully this discussion can find an official consensus on this issue. DiscoA340 (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I suggested starting a discussion, not a RFC. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

So this topic is now discussed in three locations on this page, which is redundant. Thus I paste the following from above.

There has been a discussion about this north of the border. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles/Archive 1#Redundancy model. Its RFC overwhelming was in favour of using all three parameters. In the US, surely there are numerous examples of a municipality’s official legal name excluding the actual term associated with its municipal status. Examples in Canada include Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, Northern Rockies Regional Municipality, District of Lakeland No. 521, and Dawson City among many more. We can’t exclude due to these exceptions and for those that aren’t exceptions we don’t know if they aren’t exceptions without actually using all three parameters. Can we close two and focus just on one please? Hwy43 (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@DiscoA340: I think this RFC should be withdrawn in favour of two separate discussions (not RFCs). Firstly, Magnolia677 suggested a discussion rather than an RFC. Secondly, Magnolia677 apprised of an already active discussion above.

Right now, the disputes on the two matters rest within the geography of the United States. The two discussions should be posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline, not here, because any consensus that may emerge as it relates to the US will be fraught by implications of continued need for all three parameters per consensus within other national WikiProjects.

The first separate discussion would be the redundancy question relating to the use of "Community, State" vs simply "Community" in the |name= parameter for community articles in the US.

The second separate discussion would be the redundancy question relating to use of the |official name= parameter for incorporated community articles in the US.

Invites to both discussions can be left here, at WT:CITIES, and at the applicable talk pages of US-state WikiProjects.

What is going to ensue below is too much entanglement between the two matters and the differing continued needs based on previously established consensuses of other countries outside of the US.

In summary, I suggest this be withdrawn, that all other discussions on these matter be closed (above, below, at User talk:Washuotaku, and anywhere else that may exist), and that two separate discussions (not RFCs) be opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. Hwy43 (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Redundancy issue

Los Angeles, California
City
City of Los Angeles

I believe a problem with overusing |official_name= is that it leads to redundancy with |name= and |settlement_type=, per Surtsicna, above. The example of Los Angeles from October 8 presented by Surtsicna is instructive: the infobox fragment is presented to the right.

One possible way to phrase the guidance in the documentation is Do not use |official_name= if it leads to redundancy with |name= and |settlement_type=. Use |official_name= if the official name is unusual or cannot be simply deduced from the name and settlement type.

What do other editors think? — hike395 (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment Whatever the consensus is at the end, the change should also be reflected in Template:Infobox U.S. county which also uses |official_name=. Though something to note about that template is it makes more of a reference to how the official name parameter is most commonly used in both templates. From the official instruction page; "county: the county name including the word "County", e.g., Dorchester County. official_name: the official name, e.g., County of Dorchester."

Many editors interpret "official name" to be the official name from the city website, such as "City of Chicago". The suggestion by User:Hike395 should fix this. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment So this topic is now discussed in three locations on this page, which is redundant. Thus I paste the following from above.

There has been a discussion about this north of the border. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles/Archive 1#Redundancy model. Its RFC overwhelming was in favour of using all three parameters. In the US, surely there are numerous examples of a municipality’s official legal name excluding the actual term associated with its municipal status. Examples in Canada include Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, Northern Rockies Regional Municipality, District of Lakeland No. 521, and Dawson City among many more. We can’t exclude due to these exceptions and for those that aren’t exceptions we don’t know if they aren’t exceptions without actually using all three parameters. Can we close two and focus just on one please? Hwy43 (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I was led to this discussion after intervening in a bitter content dispute which spread over hundreds of articles, and which occurred because two editors had a different interpretation of the vaguely worded "official name in English if different from name". Essentially, one editor thought "Mapleville" and "City of Mapleville" were the same, and the other thought they were different.

For this reason, I supported (above) User:Hike395's unambiguous wording for the "official name" parameter.

The Canadian model does not offer greater clarity or simplicity, as can be seen in the examples provide. The Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo is consistently called "Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo" throughout the article and on the official website, yet the infobox "name" parameter says "Wood Buffalo" (which is never used in the article). The same is true at Northern Rockies Regional Municipality and District of Lakeland No. 521. At Dawson City, the "name" is listed as "Dawson City", and the "official name" is listed a "City of Dawson", per this source. Yet the Gazetteer of Yukon calls is "Dawson (Town- Ville)", and the Canadian Geographical Names Database calls it "Dawson".

I'm not sure there is any benefit in complicating this. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Hwy43 I'm open to moving the discussion here if that is supported by other people. While I personally support the use of the parameter, I think it needs to be worded better in the template to stop arguments from occurring in the future. I may be wrong but I don't think the majority opinion here is about fully deleting the parameter, just to better clarify it. DiscoA340 (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we should Keep the parameter and clarify its usage. I don't agree with moving the discussion to the US Guidelines page, because there is no logical place in that guideline to document parameter usage. My proposal is to document the usage right here in the template (at Template talk:Infobox settlement/doc and related infoboxes, per DiscoA340). — hike395 (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a legal document, thus is why we don't need the redundant "official name" junk for communities in United States, instead the common name and state should be used "Los Angeles, California". Delete all "official_name" fields then migrate to only the use of "name" and "settlement_type". • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Or keep the official name parameter and make it super duper clear that it should only be used when the official name is vastly different from the common name (which would rarely happen). Magnolia677 (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is no consensus to remove |official_name= from the infobox, and that some regions (like Canada) have MOS guidance to use the parameter. Sbmeirow suggests removing it from infoboxes for US settlements. Therefore, there should be two actions going forward:

1. I went ahead and added the guidance (above) to the documentation for |official_name=, for all uses of the template, because there did not seem to be any objections to it.
2. I would encourage Sbmeirow and others to continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Infobox redundancies to come up with US-specific guidance, possibly even removing |official_name=.

If editors are content with the new parameter documentation, we can stop the global discussion here, and move to the US-specific discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Infobox redundancies, per Hwy43. 23:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hike395 I'm content with the wording in both templates. I also removed my previous comment on that discussion linking here so it's clear that the global discussion is over. DiscoA340 (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed improvement to infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

While there was relatively low participation, there is an overall consensus against the proposed improvements at this point in time. Primefac (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Baghdad بغداد (Arabic) بەغداد (Kurdish)
Metropolis and capital city
Mayoralty of Baghdad
Nickname:  City of Peace (مدينة السلام)

Name
State capital city
City of Raleigh
Clockwise from top left: NC State bell tower, Confederate monument at the North Carolina State Capitol (now removed), houses in Boylan Heights, houses in Historic Oakwood, statue of Sir Walter Raleigh, skyline of the downtown, Fayetteville Street, and the warehouse district
Flag Seal Logo
Nickname(s):  City of Oaks, Raleigh Wood, Oak City

Bolivia, North Carolina
Town
Town of Bolivia
Post office

We can improve the presentation of names in this infobox by following the design of {{Infobox mountain}}. Currently, all of the different kinds of names for a settlement are shown together in the header box, without explanation or labels. A reader doesn't know the meaning or importance of each name.

Instead, I propose having a naming section in this infobox, below the images at the top of the infobox. The arguments to |official_name=, |native_name=, and |other_name= will be shown in the infobox, each with a label. I've implemented this proposal in the sandbox: you can see the differences by going to the testcase page or the alternative testcase page. An example of such an infobox is shown to the right.

Not only will this be clearer for readers (IMO), but will also resolve the redundancy issue brought up by Surtsicna, above, by moving the display of |official_name= out of the header, and clearly labeling it. What do other editors think?

(Hat tip to DiscoA340 --- one of their suggestions here triggered this idea)

Pinging other discussants (Magnolia677—Hwy43—Sbmeirow—Washuotaku—WCCasey) — hike395 (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Support I think this could be a good compromise as the community seems to be split on whether the official name should be kept or not. I think this could also work for Template: Infobox U.S. County but it may need to be modified for Template:Infobox U.S. state. Another change that could be considered is the infobox header could only say City, not City, State or Province. DiscoA340 (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Virginia
State
Commonwealth of Virginia
Flag Seal
Nickname(s):  Old Dominion, Mother of Presidents
Anthem: Our Great Virginia
Country	United States
Admitted to the Union	()
Largest city	{{{LargestCity}}}
• Upper house	{{{Upperhouse}}}
• Lower house	{{{Lowerhouse}}}
U.S. senators	{{{Senators}}}
Population
• Total	{{{2,000Pop}}}
Language

I think the State infobox looks ok (see right)? — hike395 (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, it looks fine. DiscoA340 (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I have two concerns regarding the descriptions at Template:Infobox settlement#Parameter names and descriptions:
  • First, at "name": The description needs to specify that only the name should be included (without the state, province, etc.). For example, see Oakes, North Dakota. Is there a consensus that just "Oakes" should be included in the "name" parameter?
  • Second, at "native_name": The description states that this should include the "name in the official local language, if different from name, and if not English." My concern is that frequently this is being interpreted as the traditional Indigenous name. The United State has no official language, so "native name" should remain blank in the US. In Canada, there are two official languages, English and French. But look at Nunavik. Should this be removed? Does the description on the "native name" parameter need to be more explicit (or expanded)? Magnolia677 (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that your first point needs to be explicitly stated somewhere in the documentation. Personally, I remove the "state, province, etc." whenever I notice it (and have done so at Oakes, North Dakota). Deor (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done clarified documentation for both |name= and |native_name=. — hike395 (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Sbmeirow: You removed the sentence about not having "city, province" in |name= in the documentation. It was discussed both here and over here. Did you object to the whole sentence, or just the use of "Los Angeles" as an example? We could, e.g., use Kigali. — hike395 (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I removed it, because you should slow down and wait for voting feedback in this section. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

We can wait a few more days, no problem. As far as I can tell, Magnolia677, Deor, Surtsicna (over in the U.S. Guideline) and I all prefer guidance against <City>, <State> for |name=. You (Sbmeirow) appeared to be in favor of <City>, <State> (as expressed at the U.S. Guideline). Deor said they remove <State> when they find it. -- it could be that <City> (without <State>) is the standard practice. — hike395 (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I did a 1% sample of infoboxes of U.S. communities here, and found that 82% of them have <City>, <State>; 14% of them have just <City>, and 4% have no |name=, just |official_name=. It could be that multiple editors are not agreeing and we aren't being consistent. Hopefully we can come to a consensus. — hike395 (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Changing CITY,STATE affects far more editors than just a few people that you listed, also I don't remember see a vote, other than the stuff going on here. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Would like to remind editors of WP:VOTE --- voting isn't the standard process, consensus-forming is. — hike395 (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

You can also read the "votes" as a summary. The Banner talk 17:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

In the case of a name for a city or town that does have an Indigenous-language name, in the US or Canada, where would that go? And what would the criteria be? Some of the names in, for example, Lushootseed, derive from the tribal settlements that used to be there, but are still used to refer to the current settlement. Other names refer to specific landmarks, such as islands or things like that. Should both be included? Or none. PersusjCP (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I am afraid that this change leads to a whole new set of problems. To my opinion, an important problem stems out of the past: widening of the scope and merging other templates into it. Although the existence of many, closely related infoboxes was not optimal merging them was also not optimal. Now we have a template that covers everything, leading to lack of clarity and redundancy. Instead of changing the template once again, I suggest that first the "manual" should be brought up to standard. The Banner talk 11:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@The Banner: I'm all in favor of improving the documentation. I support the changes to the documentation proposed by Magnolia677, and will implement them now. What problems are you anticipating by adding labels to the fields? I'm hoping that there's some change or compromise that we can find that will avoid those. — hike395 (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Mainly due to language warriors pushing their preferred language. Examples I have seen are the Balkans and Ireland (English/Irish names). But also regarding places with more than two names like Liège (Dutch: Luik; German: Lüttich) or cases like Gorkum/Gorinchem (alternate name has same value). The Banner talk 13:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Just in case it is ambiguous: |official_name=, |native_name=, and |other_name= already exist in the infobox. Do you think the problem would get worse with labeling fields that already exist? It might get better: right now, |native_name= shows up in the header, but the proposed change would place it into the infobox itself. — hike395 (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Call me overly cautious, but yes, I think it can give the language warriors new toys to play with. The Banner talk 15:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, because I don't see any examples of cities is this proposal. Also, this affects far more than just the tiny number of people that are currently commenting on this subject, thus more people should be invited for comment & voting. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Sbmeirow I don't know if this is what you mean but there is an example infobox above showing how it would look for the City of Baghdad, Iraq. DiscoA340 (talk) 01:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Oppose - If I'm reading The Banner correctly, I believe I share their concerns. This honestly does seem like an improvement, but the current style is generally the design that is used across most articles on Wikipedia, regardless of what infobox template is used. I don't believe we should foster inconsistency by changing the design of an arbitrary subset of articles that just so happen to use this one template...it should be a project-wide MOS specification, and then any templates can be uncontentiously updated accordingly. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photomontage in Infobox Settlement

Is there a limit to the number of photos used in this module? There should be. I would suggest 3–6 max, three for smallers towns, hamlets, etc. 4 to 6 for larger places and cities, maxing out at 6 or 7. The use of these are in many cases over-illustrating article pages. The absolute max (for large cities) should be 7 in any special cases, IMO. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 02:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

In essence I agree, it makes sense to limit photomontages. I have seen some crazy huge montages that make the infobox hideously long. But do we really need another rule? WP is already getting buried under piles of rules and policies. And if we make a rule, others will likely think that infoboxes must have that number of photos (just one nice representative one is really best IMO). Just WP:Be bold and trim huge montages when you see them, like I do. Often they contain duplicate images that are already in the article anyway. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 December 2022

Remove |official_name= parameter in example 2 which includes the text "City of Detroit."

This directly contradicts the intended use of the parameter which states "Avoid using official_name if it leads to redundancy with name and settlement_type. Use official_name if the official name is unusual or cannot be simply deduced from the name and settlement type." DiscoA340 (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 Sorry, I didn't realize I had that editing privilege, thanks for alerting me. DiscoA340 (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Potential addition of airport parameter

Airports are a critical feature of cities, they allow easy transportation in and out of them, and numerous editors in the past have used the available blank parameters to add nice to have information like this. Someone in the community has suggested that I start a discussion regarding the potential addition of the airport parameter as an always available parameter that can be used if desired.

Specifically, I am referring to international airports, examples being Los Angeles International Airport, Calgary International Airport, and Toronto-Pearson International Airport. More unknown airports that are used for stricitly cargo for example shouldn't be added. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 20:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Please don't split the discussion away from the one at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. SounderBruce 21:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Population density

Shouldn't population density automatically round off to the nearest whole number per Significant figures? Casey (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Representing occupied territories

There’s a discussion about use or misuse of this template for representing occupied territories at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Occupation in infobox for localities affected by the ongoing military conflict.

Input would be welcome, especially by anyone who understands the structure and implications of the subdivision and parts fields.  —Michael Z. 05:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 February 2023

A CSS Code for embedded templates/infoboxes Tojoroy20 (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Also, please establish consensus for the change. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Population

Hello. How can I make Minneapolis population in the infobox reflect the actual dates? We have

Population (2020)

• City
• Estimate (2021)
• etc.

That is wrong because 2020 in the heading appears to reflect the whole list contents, but it doesn't. The template offers:

| population_total         = 428403
| population_as_of         = 2020 
| population_footnotes     = 
| population_est           = 425336
| pop_est_as_of            = 2021
| pop_est_footnotes        = 
| etc.

But "population_total", "population_as_of", and "population_footnotes" are treated as a heading.

References

-SusanLesch (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

All data within the population box (except for the estimate count) is for the decade census, because it is official, where as estimate related data is not official because it's just a guess.

https://data.census.gov/profile/Minneapolis_city,_Minnesota?g=1600000US2743000

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Sbmeirow. So you are saying that everything listed under the heading "Population" is supposed to refer to 2020 census data, except "Estimate"? I can't verify that because under Population in the infobox, Urban and Metro both have sources not to data but to description pages that evidently require the reader to decide where to click. I won't play that game. Can you please point me to a US city that has correct citations to the US Census? Thank you for your help. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Also why did you change the 2020 population from April to a guestimate from July? From the source:

April 1, 2020
Estimates Base
428,403

Population Estimate (as of July 1)
2020
429,014

2021
425,336

References

-SusanLesch (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Everything in https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/tables/2020-2021/cities/totals/SUB-IP-EST2021-ANNRNK.xlsx is an estimate, it says it right there above every column.

"2020 Decennial Census" is NOT the same as the "2000 Population Estimate".

population_total is filled with the official "Decennial Census" for the decade years that end in "0", but never an estimate!!!

population_est is filed with the "Population Estimate", but only for non-decade years that end in "1" to "9".

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I still have questions about how to link to census data. "Urban" links to a page full of links, if I click on the first one, I get lucky. It's the Federal Register that reports 2020 census. Why can't we just link there? "Metro" links to a page without any clues, just a map and a bunch of links. How is the reader supposed to know what to click to get the metro 2020 census total? The rest of this all sounds good now, thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

census.gov is the official source for census related information, per USCITY guideline. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Well yes, that's why I am asking. So I don't believe you think we should send readers on a wild goose chase. The Federal Register page has the US Census as its source. Metro gives me a useless map. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

exemption of MOS:SMALLFONT on infobox settlement

I have disagreement with other editor on the usage of small font on this infobox template. I am against the usage of small font due to accessibility issue and per MOS:SMALLFONT, also documentation of Template:Small. Whereas he is supports the usage of small font as many major cities are also using Template:Small on it's infobox such as Kuala Lumpur and Paris. To his defense, it's easy to find other examples that uses Template:Small. Furthermore he point out that WP:GUIDES also states though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply which imply this infobox is an exemption of MOS:SMALLFONT. The question is "do we have such exemption that applies here?" Thx. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Someone(s) ignoring the guidelines in a certain type of infobox doesn't constitute an exemption by itself. There needs to be a genuine reason given why the infobox should be exempted, and it should have been discussed somewhere beforehand. I don't see any obvious reasons why in the 2 articles you mentioned for the guideline to be ignored there. BilCat (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, I also don't see any good reason to why guideline should be exempted. His argument simply because {{small}} is can easily be found in other article that used this infobox hence the guideline can ignored, those 2 article are his examples. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Have you informed them of this discussion? I'm not assuming you didn't, just asking for clarity. BilCat (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I did, but not on his talk page. But now you mentioned it, I think it'll be better to inform on his talk page as well. Ckfasdf (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The only reason that small tags and templates are so prevalent in infobox transclusions and navboxes is that there has not been a systematic effort to locate and remove them since the wording of MOS:SMALLFONT was changed after the 2018 RFC. There has not even been a complete effort to remove small tags and small templates from within infobox templates themselves; note that not every one of the usages linked here is invalid, since some of the tags are applied to text that has been enlarged. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, as that was also my assumption. I have been manually removing small tags from a variety of infoboxes in articles as I find them. BilCat (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Aaah.. so that's the reason. Thank you for the clarification. Ckfasdf (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 April 2023

In the example for Chicago, the English motto "(City in a Garden)" should not be italicized; only the Latin should be italicized. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC) Magnolia677 (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done, but I think you could have done this yourself. (It doesn't involve an edit to the protected template itself, just to the documentation page.) Deor (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Deor: The edit tab was in a different spot so I missed it. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Addition of a second flag option to the template

There are several cities with 2 co-official flags, like Grand Rapids, Michigan and Charlotte, North Carolina. I think it's a good idea to implement this into the template, right now the current layout adds these semi-noticable white blocks next the flag. Thanks! WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 12:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Native name

Following edits here and here by Magnolia677, there appears to be a difference in interpretation of the documentation surrounding the native_name parameter. The language cited by Magnolia677 is that the parameter is for the name in the official local language, as seen in the documentation, "not the name native people used", Magnolia677 says. It appears the key word here is official. This word was added by Moxy in this edit. To me, it seems perfectly reasonable that the native_name parameter be used for the native name. In the two disputed pages (Sandy Bay, Saskatchewan and Green Lake, Saskatchewan), there should be absolutely nothing wrong with putting their native name in that parameter. To remove it by claiming it's not an "official" local language is tantamount to cultural erasure; it's equivalent to delegitimizing their right to self-determination by saying that the only "official" language is the one of the colonial country. In summary, I contend that the inclusion of the word official is unnecessary, and that it takes a stance against reconciliation/self-determination. I propose that it be removed, as it does not appear to have been included through any form of consensus.

I wonder what members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America would have to say about this? From a quick look through the list of participants, perhaps Amqui or Ish ishwar might have some thoughts on this? Rowing007 (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Pls see Template:native name. This parameter is related to native language..... not indigenous name. As in a German article what would be the German name of a town. It's not the place to spam Aboriginal titles. This has come out multiple times I'm wondering if we should dumb down the template naming..... as in for go the academic term and use a common term like local dialect.Moxy- 20:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Moxy: The explanation on the "Infobox settlement" template seems clear as a mud-free river, but obviously not clear enough, as I remove Indigenous names with some frequency. It needs a title that doesn't use the word "native". Magnolia677 (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Change to National name related to "National language" Moxy- 13:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Even using the idea of National language we immediately run into more issues in the first paragraph.

"One or more languages spoken as first languages in the territory of a country may be referred to informally or designated in legislation as national languages of the country." Poketama (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

In order for me (and anyone else) to understand this, you need to define your terms. There are no definitions of anything, so the river is full of mud. What is a native language? How does a native language differ from an indigenous language? Give at least two examples of each. What does official mean? What is the difference between official vs nonofficial? Give at least two examples of each. Also, answer the question of what information you want in the infobox. And, if there is any name information in the article but not in the infobox, then give a justification for why the extra article name information should not be in the infobox (assuming that some folks want that info in the infobox but others don't).

Moxy linked to the article on native language. This is incomprehensible to me. In the context of that article, a native language is simply the language (or languages) that an individual person has spoken since birth up until (around) the age of 6 years old. The article is basically about peoples' brains – psychology, language acquisition, language teaching methods. This has nothing to do with placenames in any shape or form. Why mention it? – ishwar  (speak) 05:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe Moxy intended official language, which is what the documentation currently recommends. For example in Afghanistan Pashto and Dari are official languages, but there are many locally spoken languages which are not official, eg Pashayi, Nuristani, or Munji. I interpret (and they can correct me if I am mistaken) that Magnolia and Moxy would include only a name in Pashto or Dari for the |native name= parameter in an article on an Afghan settlement, while Rowing would consider a name in those unofficial languages as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You are correct ......can we make it more clear? another fix...here to Moxy- 13:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The "native_name" parameter is very specific, and would not apply to any articles about Saskatchewan, which has one official language. This template is used for settlement articles around the world. If editors want to add particular information about local languages, food, culture, and so forth, these would be best added to the body of the article, not shoehorned into already bloated infoboxes. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

According to Moxy's proposal, it would, since Saskatchewan is located within a country which has two official national languages. It's probably worth resolving what level of "official" is intended - local, subnational, or national. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Neither Sandy Bay nor Green Lake have official French names, but I get what you mean. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Since Americans still use the term native for a group of humans its a hard one. The rest of the world uses the term for orign like "he's a native New Yorker" or "these plants are native to North America". The academic meaning is not understood as seen above. Replacing native in my view would be the best solution....and let each article decide what should be used as in local, subnational, or national. Moxy- 13:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that template page is as clear as you think it is, and changing it to 'official name' to fit your interpretation is jumping to conclusions.

"An inline formatting template, based on {{Lang}}, for indicating the official/defacto name in a language other than English."

This sentence includes: a defacto name in a language other than English; so a name that is not official but is factually used by a community. So we're not just using a government's definition of official here. At the moment the page refers to an indigenous language, Boonwurrung. My interpretation of the page is that it refers to the name of the place in the language of the original inhabitants. Whether that's German or the Woods Cree Language I don't see why that would make a difference.

To me your interpretation seems to be: "Language used by the dominant ethnic group" in which case why? Poketama (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds ok but the "dominant ethnic group" would exclude Indigenous (First Nations) variations as they are rarely in a high percentage in the westernworld. Moxy- 16:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

By definition, many of these communities (e.g., Green Lake, SK) are predominantly Indigenous. As well, a non-negligible number literally do not consider themselves "Canadian"; they consider themselves a member of their respective Nation/Tribe/Band, etc.. It gets really complicated as each of the 600+ First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities have different ways of characterizing themselves. Rowing007 (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

One of the examples for Template:native name that you've linked is an Australian Aboriginal language placename? That would seem to support Rowing's point? I'm unsure why the page wouldn't after reading over it. Poketama (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The "Native" paramater is realted to native languages... it may or may not be indigenous in nature. In most cases this is not an indigenous one like...Moscow vs Москва. Moxy- 16:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

There's no places in the world where the Boonwurrung people are a dominant ethnic group, so that example demonstrates the usage of an original First Nations name even when they are a minority. Poketama (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Would changing the parameter to Local name solve the problem? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It sure would. The intent of this parameter was to provide a place for entering an "official" local name, which is different from the article name, and not in English. So yes, changing the parameter name (suggested already) would certainly lessen the likelhood of editors confusing "native" with "indiginous", and viewing the removal of a non-official name as "cultural erasure" and "delegitimizing". Moreover, a note that "official" means a government-recognized name (published in GNIS (US) or GNBC (Canada)) would be useful. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Nothing has been "confused" by anyone. It's a difference in interpretation stemming from an abuse of language. Your declarations and tone (i.e., putting select terms I used in quotation marks) completely ignore the inherent ambiguity surrounding the "official" status of all things Indigenous (by the way, it's spelled Indigenous). This is a debate that transcends any policy/guideline currently in place, and to tread so recklessly by declaring intent not reached by consensus sets a really bad precedent. Your proposed note is not the result of a consensus either. You've made it clear you don't think this information belongs in the infobox, regardless of the parameter name. This has not been directly debated yet and is far from being a consensus position. Rowing007 (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Magnolia, you haven't edited the infobox template or the documentation page. Neither has Moxy, except for editing this specific line to suit their interpretation. So, what authority do you have to be able to tell us the 'intent' of the parameter? Poketama (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

A name change to the parameter is needed to convey the purpose of the parameter that we've been using for over a decade. The vast majority understand the meaning and is why the vast majority of info boxes are done correctly.but we clearly have a sub set that do not. Moxy- 04:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Instead of trying to belittle those who disagree with the current state of the template/parameter by claiming we "do not understand" it, perhaps it would be more productive to critically examine it and analyze the possibility that there is a need for change to take into account the additional case of Indigenous languages. The ambiguity of the current wording indicates a need for change, and potentially a reassessment of the contents of the infobox to accommodate endonyms in a way that is inclusive of Indigenous cultures. Let's not fall into an appeal to tradition fallacy. Rowing007 (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• I just had a look and the usage of First Nations names is given as an unchanged example from the original creation of the documentation page in 2011. As I said above, the example 'Boonwurrung' people are not a dominant ethnic group in any place in the world. This is proof that this is how the parameter was 'intended' to be used. If @Thayts is around maybe they can elaborate on their original documentation.
• In much of the developed world there are original names for places that are overlooked because the First Nations are not the dominant group anymore, but are still a significant portion of the population both culturally and in numbers.
  • If we are only considering dominant ethnic groups we will have to go and remove every mention of other ethnic groups in the infobox; for example Singapore is dominated by Chinese Singaporeans but uses Tamil and Malay as well in the infobox.
    • Ok well minority names can stay, but we should only use 'official' names from government sources right? Or names that are in official languages? Well Wikipedia doesn't usually work this way, we use what is used by the people not a prescriptivist approach.WP:UCRN WP:NAMECHANGES
      • Additionally, if we only used government sources for inclusion of names and languages, we would in many cases be ignoring the reality of how people use names and instead pushing the agenda of governments. So remove the minority Arabic name from Jerusalem or Golan Heights. Remove all Uyghur/Arabic names from Ürümqi, Xinxiang. No Papuan names in West Papua. The Rohingya? They are a minority and the Burmese government says they don't exist, so any placename in their language is prohibited. Poketama (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The least ambiguous option would be endonym. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I would wholeheartedly support the use of endonym as a parameter. Rowing007 (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Issue with Visual Editor

Partially copied from Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor#Possible issue with Visual Editor

I know that there are limitations with Visual Editor and templates but I've started to notice it acting weird on a few specifically. If you edit Template:Infobox settlement, it removes parameter spacing and messes up hidden comments (Example). DiscoA340 (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

RFC on Native Name

As discussed above, there is contention on how and when the native_name parameter should be used. I think there should be an RFC to resolve this. Does anyone have suggestions on how it should be structured or how the question should be asked? Poketama (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

It might be useful to look at this related 2019 discussion about Infobox person, along with this implementation discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Auto density

I've put in "auto" for the Urban agglomeration of Montreal "infobox settlement" template (|population_density_km2), and it's not returning a value. Criticalthinker (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The auto density uses the total area, not land area. Regards, -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

That's quite silly, then. People generally don't live on water in cities, so why would the template base itself on total area? Where can we discuss changing this? Criticalthinker (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that has been said before a few times: Template talk:Infobox settlement/Archive 22#"Auto" density should compute based on land area, not total area, Template talk:Infobox settlement/Archive 25#"Auto" density should compute based on land area, not total area. Seems to have no traction. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll start it here, then. I'd like to propose using area_land_km2 as the default in the template. Criticalthinker (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Exemplar for elevation_max_footnotes

I removed Leeds as an exemplar for use of elevation_max_footnotes, as the article does not use this template since this edit. Someone may wish to add a new exemplar for it. Nurg (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I have now replaced it with City of Leeds. I think that's ok. Nurg (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Brazilian Municipalities

I've noticed that several short descriptions for Brazilian municipalities use the following format "Municipality in REGION, Brazil". This can be seen in the following articles: São Gabriel da Cachoeira, Tabatinga, Petropolis, etc... While not incorrect, this would be like the Chicago article being "City in Midwest, United States" or the San Francisco article being "City in West Coast, United States". I think these short descriptions are autogenerated from pulling the subdivision_type1 field from the settlement infobox template. I propose instead that it should use the subdivision_type2 field, so that it uses the Brazilian state that the municipality is located in. BaduFerreira (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a special case for Module:Settlement short description. Pinging Galobtter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Image positioning

I attempted to position the Census population infobox for the West Ishpeming, Michigan article to the left so it would show in the "Demographics" section rather than separated at the bottom right of the article. The result was the infobox was forced to the bottom left of the article and totally as out of place as it was before. It seems the Infobox settlement doesn't allow any image or other to exist tot the left. This seems rather like a flaw in the system and needs to be addressed. Vsmith (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The least bad method that I know of is to align center (which I did) at West Ishpeming, Michigan. This infobox behavior has been around for years: I'm not sure how to fix it. — hike395 (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vsmith: I used the {{stack}} template here to display the population box to the left of the infobox (but to the right of the text). Is that what you were trying to do, Vsmith? Deor (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you ... I'll try to remember those tricks, seems I recall using the "align center" bit sometime in the past - but this old brain be forgetful ... Vsmith (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Per my edit, it can be done without using stacking. Append {{clear left}} after the photo, and align the census table along the left side. For other articles, "clear left" template is useful in Demographics sections that have a census table and a small amount of text. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

RFC on usage of native_name parameter for First Nations placenames

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1. Can the "native_name" parameter be used to display an alternative placename that is used by First Nations peoples?

2. If so, should this only apply to places where said First Nations people are the dominant ethnic group? Poketama (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

1. Yes. However, the title of the infobox should be modifiable; as in some places the word ‘native’ is offensive
2. No. There should be no such restriction. Any inclusion / exclusion should be decided by consensus; with a default to include all. Your proposal would exclude Australian cities, which would be damaging to WP’s reputation to have such a rule Jack4576 (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• 1. Yes. 2. No. Poketama (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• No but yes sometimes....this is a parameter for first languages ( academically called a "native language") used by a place. That is places where English isn't the de facto language.. like Russian... for places in Russia. Chinese for places in China. It's not an indigenous parameter used for random minority dialects with limited usage. That said if a location or geological feature is widely known by its indigenous name this perimeter could be used. In Canada many many places use a new English term that are derived from indigenous names.....that should be clearly covered in a section of the article devoted to this purpose. As suggested in the 4 previous talks over the past 6 years the parameter needs to be renamed so it's purpose is more clear. What is being proposed here is the ability to add indigenous translations regardless of status or common usage......that has been rejected and reverted for over a decade....for example...Northwest Territories has several Indigenous languages used .... listing all of these without context is confusing, misleading and simply clutter to say the least. We're not here to right great wrongs by giving prominence to one minority language over another just because of the past.Moxy- 20:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• 1. Yes. 2. No. per my above comments from a few weeks ago. Also to note is that the wording used by Moxy above ("random minority language", "that has been rejected and reverted for over a decade", "confusing, misleading and simply clutter to say the least", "just because of the past") is dismissive, ill-informed, insubstantive, appeals to tradition, and misconstrues the purpose and meaning of the proposed inclusion of Indigenous names. Rowing007 (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Moxy's tone are counterintuitive to the discussion at hand and I hope they refrain from further condescending behavior aka keep the discussion civil. They've been on Wikipedia long enough to know better.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 05:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• 1. Yes.: Obviously the infobox could include a placename used by First Nations people. To categorically say otherwise would be ridiculous.
  2. No.: It would likewise be ridiculous to categorically say that First Nations' placenames can only be listed where "First Nations people are the dominant ethnic group". What if they are 49% of the people? A peoples' history can dramatically affect a place even if they do not "dominate" that place. There would have to be significant usage of the placename in the sources; and that would have to be determined on each page. We can't categorically disallow First Nations' placenames for any page unless they are the 'dominant ethnic group'. It would be too sweeping of a restriction. Larataguera (talk) 02:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• 1. Yes. 2. No. For reasons very clearly laid out by those above. See also my comment below about Template:Infobox First Nation James Hyett (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• 1: yes; 2: no. It is improper speculation to omit what Moxy calls a dying language, and it is censorship to prefer official names that the current government uses over the unofficial names used by those who have been ethnically cleansed. I would not oppose using a different parameter name if existing pages use native_name to mean something different.  — Freoh 13:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  What we need is a new parameter. It's clear that the meaning is not understood by many. Moxy- 20:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have a suggestion for a new parameter and how it might work? Poketama (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Indigenous_name = ..... would need to be care full of spam...need officially recognized....for example In 2017, Nunavut approved 625 names in Inuktitut in the Cape Dorset area. In 2016, Manitoba approved 117 Indigenous place names. Cant just spam random translations. Moxy- 14:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  What are examples of "spam random translations"? Seems very uncommon. If they are reliably sourced, then they should be included.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 15:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Community Names – PWNHC". CPSPG. 2022-07-12. Moxy- 17:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

  Those are "official" names, I asked what are the examples of the "spam random translations" that are supposedly problematic on Wikipedia.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 14:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Everywhere .....we revert the addition of indigenous translation all over its why we are here.[1] Moxy- 23:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• I think in most cases, names that are not in widespread use are WP:UNDUE in an infobox. At the same time, the number of fluent speakers of an indigenous language in a locality is not necessarily an accurate measure of how often the name is used. (t · c) buidhe 16:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• There has been some discussion above about whether this is appropriate. I think that users, including myself, have made good arguments that the native_name parameter is appropriate and would include vital information for Wikipedia users about the names of places used by their First Peoples. These names are important and should not be thrown away because they are not a dominant people, as then most of the colonial world would have their names erased. The usage of multiple names on Wikipedia is not unusual and is seen on the vast majority of pages for places outside of the English-dominant world, as well as pages for Australian, Irish, South African, and New Zealand places. As such, only the US and Canadian Wikipedias do not widely use First Nations names in the infobox although there are instances otherwise (eg. Quebec also uses alternate French placenames, Louisiana uses French placenames, Spanish is used in some parts of the US, and some places like the Navajo Nation use First Nations placenames). Poketama (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Every ethnic group thinks that their translation is the most important. Moxy- 20:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  This comment has severe exclusionary and borderline xenophobic undertones. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, right? (But it is broken). It's not about ranking the importance of different ethnic groups' translations, it's about including the translations of the place names in the language(s) of the native people(s) who live there. Rowing007 (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's also important that a First Nations name is the first name of the place. It's not a translation. It often has deep historical meaning and has broader use to the wider community in a way that, for example, the Chinese transliteration for 'Melbourne' does not.

  Moxy has also made the argument that there are many different First Nations and so there would be too many names to list for a place, this isn't really a real world problem; First Nations territories only overlap at the borders so in the vast majority of cases there is only the need to list one groups' name. If not, is it really such a problem to have more than one? Singapore and many other pages manage just fine. Poketama (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Regardless of local racial makeup, I think placenames that have a verifiable indigenous origin (e.g. Seattle or Mukilteo, Washington) or made official (e.g. Utqiagvik, Alaska) should use the parameter. However, using modern translations of names that have not been officially adopted or seen widespread use (e.g. Vancouver) would be inappropriate. SounderBruce 17:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agree places with names of indigenous origins should clearly cover this fact with sources in the body of the article. But listing a translation term of a dying language spoken and understood by very few people simply to spread awareness of it is not our purpose. Moxy- 20:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  Yet another misrepresentation of the intent of this proposal, with an ever-present undertone of snark/contempt ("dying language"). Focus on the facts. The parameter name is "native_name". It should therefore include native name(s) for that settlement. Rowing007 (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Uh yeah... Many First Nations languages are not dead or dying. The Navajo Nation even has a university. Poketama (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  The parameter is related to names of countries in their own languages. In this case "native" does not mean indigenous but is related to de facto language of non English speaking countries. A name change for the parameter to reflect it's original intent that has been used for over a decade an RFC for a new parameter "|Indigenous name =" should be implemented. Moxy- 04:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  You keep pointing to the fact that the parameter "has been used for over a decade", but do you know what's been used for much longer? The native names. You're also obfuscating the right to self-determination of Canadian Indigenous peoples (e.g., First Nations, Inuit, and Métis) regarding their governance. Per Aboriginal land title in Canada, Indigenous peoples are conferred the right to decide how the land will be used, enjoyed, occupied, possessed, pro-actively used and managed, and the right to the economic benefits of the land. I would contend that language falls under that definition. Regardless, the parameter is already used for native names of settlements in Northwest Territories and Nunavut, which include languages of First Nations/Inuit in their official languages. In Yukon, where the official languages are English and French, the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act legislates the "[p]rovision of programs and services for citizens of the first nation in relation to their aboriginal languages". The Yukon Languages Act also enshrines numerous protections of aboriginal languages relating to their use, or of programs or services offered in these languages.

  Here are comparable examples from Australia and Russia:

  • Australian places use Template:Infobox Australian place, and Australia has no official language, yet no locations (that I could find after a moderate search) incorporate Indigenous names in the infobox, even though the "native_name" parameter is used (and conflictingly referred to in the template documentation as both the space for de facto languages and Indigenous languages). For example, the Barngarla name for Port Augusta is Goordnada, but it's not used in the infobox.
  • Russian places use Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality, which boasts comprehensive documentation with separate parameters for additional official languages and non-official languages:

  | loc_name1 = Name in another official language of the federal subject, up to loc_name4 / loc_lang4

  | loc_lang1 = Name of the language in which loc_name1..4 is given

  | other_name = Name in a language that is not official, but important to this inhabited locality

  | other_lang = Name of the language in which other_name is given

  • As well, Template:Infobox islands provides a space for languages of the local population(s). To tie both of these templates togethers with examples, Kola Peninsula lists the Kildin Sámi name (Куэлнэгк нёа̄ррк) in the infobox (in addition to English and Russian). Murmansk lists the Kildin Sámi (Мурман ланнҍ) and Northern Sámi (Murmánska) names in the infobox (in addition to English and Russian), even though the only official language of Murmansk Oblast (in which both Murmansk and the Kola Peninsula are located) is Russian.

  It would seem the obvious solution here is to create a new template for Canadian places/inhabited localities, or at the very least follow the usage set by Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality, with "local" and "other" name parameters. Rowing007 (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

  Side note: Australian articles do attempt to use Aboriginal placenames. eg. Melbourne This was based on the use of native_name on Infobox_settlement. Poketama (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• I would like to point out regarding question 2 (places where First Nation people are the dominant ethnic group) that, at least in the Canadian context, we do have Template:Infobox First Nation, which includes the "endonym" parameter, described as "The preferred or Indigenous-language name of the band, if applicable." This could either be a template used as an example for any new "Canadian places" template that is made, or it could continue to be the primary template used for infoboxes of First Nations. James Hyett (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
• It seems like, I don't know a lot about it (I'm English), but the First Nations names where there are any are an important part of the history (silly to treat a place that existed before the Europeans arrived as if it had no history before then) and it would be interesting (and only fair) to encourage putting them in, but piffling formalities are important on Wikipedia to keep things from getting jumbled and I do see that that "native_name" is currently used for the name in the majority local language. It looks like, the "Parameter names and descriptions" box currently includes "other_name - For places with a former or more common name like Bombay or Saigon", but this isn't included in the main list and hence isn't obvious unless people scroll a long way down - if "native_name" won't do for First Nations names, maybe adding "other_name" to the official list and adding something like "or significant local minority languages such as First Nations names in America" to make it obvious that that's where to put them would be useful. Wombat140 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• I shouldn't have to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not censored, even if someone considers a topic offensive. We are suppose to write articles with a neutral point of view as possible, but we don't have to sterilize every topic to a point where there is zero offensiveness. 70.179.149.68 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggest allowing for two flags.

I know of a Canadian municipality that has a modern-looking "municipal" flag and a more traditional "granted" flag. Would be nice if both flags could be shown in the infobox. 184.144.56.164 (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. The state of Minnesota in the US is changing their state flag, so the state will for years be populated by two flags. The original is like you describe, a granted seal. I think it could be helpful to display both when the time comes. Pingnova (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 8 August 2023

As brought up here, many pages use this template (via {{Infobox U.S. county}}, but likely also in other ways) providing a percentage sign in the field area_water_percent. While it may be possible to correct all of these pages, it is likely easier to simply account for this in the template. I wrote a quick check for this in the sandbox (diff); I don't know if this is the most elegant way to do this or not, but it appears to work. A testcase can be found at the bottom of Template:Infobox_settlement/testcases3; all other testcases appear unchanged. LittlePuppers (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

(The sandbox was synced beforehand, so if this is something that is agreed to be a good idea, it should be fine to just copy the sandbox over if that's easier, rather than find and copy over the exact right part of one line.) LittlePuppers (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Population density: Use land area only?

I think it would be better to use the land area only to automatically calculate population density. What do you think? Kk.urban (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree. The best way to move this forward is to make such changes at the template sandbox page, see if it works, and then ask to adopt the sandbox version as the new one. See for example the section below. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 17:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

State Name in Infobox

This was somewhat discussed at Template talk:Infobox settlement/Archive 32#Use of official name in Infobox Settlement, but a full consensus wasn't ever reached and any work regarding this issue was reverted. Like the|official_name= parameter, whether or not the state name should be included in the |name= parameter is also another point of contention on US articles (e.g. New York City vs. Roanoke) Personally, I believe the state name should be removed on more populated/significant cities but then again, that's my opinion. Though getting some consensus on this issue will likely reduce editor conflicts and give better instruction to new users (like what the |official_name= parameter discussion did). Thank you for your time; have a good day. DiscoA340 (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I support having only the name of the settlement in the infobox for |name=, not including any higher administrative district (county, state, province). Adding such district names would disambiguate, and per MOS:INFOBOXGEO: Where the article title is disambiguated, the plain name can head the infobox, as long as the topic is clear (e.g. São Paulo at São Paulo (state)). — hike395 (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I Support coming to a consenus on this. It's not consistent at the moment, and we need to define the policy. My vote is by policy not include state name from the infobox, as this is already covered in the lead and page title. Glman99 (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Specifically, the current guidance is unclear imo. "This is the usual name in English. If it's not specified, the infobox will use the official_name as a title unless this too is missing, in which case the page name will be used." I read this that the preference is usual name, then official_name, then page name. This is open to interpretation and could use clear guidelines to create consistency. Glman99 (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

As I stated below 2 months ago, this is the wrong place to ask this question. If you want consensus for USA articles, then ask it there. Since you have excluded that group from your question, then you still haven't achieved consensus. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This template is used on over a half a MILLION pages (558,000). Since each country has different needs, long ago editors did what made the most sense for each country. In USA, often a community name may exist in numerous states, thus it makes more sense to always include the state too. This has been talked to death over the past 2 decades, yet newer editors come along and act like they know best yet ignore article edit traditions and discussions in the past. If you want to make a blanket policy for the entire world, then numerous editors need to be invited to vote on this subject matter. If this only concerns communities in United States, then this should be discussed and voted on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 21 July 2023

Can the native_name styling be changed so that the native_name_lang displays before the name? eg. Japanese: 東京都. This would make it more clear what language is being referred to, especially on pages that have lesser known languages. For example, Port Moresby lists 'Pot Mosbi' as a native_name. However, it's not clear what that language is because there's many Papuan languages. (Although I can infer that its probably Tok Pisin, many casual readers wouldn't have that knowledge.). Poketama (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I can see this being useful. However in a lot of cases (e.g. a Japanese place), wouldn't it would be entirely redundant? Could we think about making it an optional extra perhaps rather than adding it to all articles? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Port Moresby has "Pot Mosbi" in the |other_name= field, not |native_name=. And the language is identified as Tok Pisin in the first sentence of the article, in the parenthesis immediately following the boldfaced name of the place. Deor (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Idea needs some baking. Izno (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there's something to be explored here. For example, Melbourne lists the Boonwurrung/Woiwurrung name (Narrm) under the English name. When I look at the box, it just says "Melbourne // Narrm // Victoria", and my immediate thought is "what the heck is 'Narrm'"? To contrast with a rather functional example, Murmansk lists the English name and the Russian name (without saying it's Russian), but also lists the Kildin Sami and Northern Sami names while explicitly mentioning those languages; it doesn't just drop those names without context. As we can see with Melbourne, it can be uninformative for readers (and confusing/laborious for curious readers) to see a non-English name without the language being mentioned, espcially when the non-English name does not resemble the English name whatsoever (Melbourne/Narrm = completely different vs. Murmansk/Мурманск = still recognizably similar). This would also contest the claim that it would be redundant to include the language for Japanese place names, because, kanji (or any non-Latin script) is unrecognizable for unilingual English speakers. A middle ground for certain script names where the transliteration is recognizably similar to the English name, could be that the transliteration be used in addition to the script name, and including the language would not be necessary (example: Tokyo; 東京; Tōkyō). Those are my thoughts/solutions. Rowing007 (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 13 September 2023

This template supports both elevation_m and elevation_ft. When either of these parameters is given, the other corresponding elevation measure should be rounded to the nearest whole foot or meter. Likewise with lowest_elevation and highest_elevation. Currently, this template uses the default Template:Convert rounding rules which may use a ten or higher rounding rather than units if the elevation ends in a zero. For example, Denver's official elevation of 5,280 feet is shown as 5,280 ft (1,610 m) rather than the correct 5,280 ft (1,609 m). Please correct these oversights. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 05:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

If 5280ft is entered, can we safely assume this is correct to the nearest foot? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Showing 1,610 m as the equivalent of 5,280 ft is fine. If you really want Denver to show 1,609 m, add |elevation_m=1609 to its infobox. I am deactivating this edit request, because there isn't a code change request here that someone can act on. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)