Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Elevation

Can we add a field for elevation (height above sea level)? This would be helpful in mountainous areas.

Template:Infobox settlement has relevant fields. This template is used in the Leeds article. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: Good idea. I'll do this in a day or two, if there are no objections. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 November 2014

This template appears in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. I believe that the following edits will fix this minor problem: Remove the first instance of |float=center from immediately below -->{{Location map.

The |float=center described above occurs in two separate instances of {{Location map}}. Please remove the first |float=center in each of the two templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC) – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I have implemented the change in the sandbox, and can confirm that it has the desired effect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC).

 Done -- John of Reading (talk) 08:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This edit, along with an edit to {{EB1911}}, will remove over 30,000 articles from Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: There shouldn't have been any due to {{EB1911}}, I carefully fixed it last month. These three edits were unnecessary; I explained why my edit was quite sufficient at Template talk:Cite EB1922#HIDE_PARAMETER. I even WP:NULLEDITted several transcluding pages to satisfy myself that they were no longer in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but "shouldn't have been" isn't the same as "will be", unfortunately. I re-removed the template from the category by fixing a typo in an edit after yours. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 January 2015

I'm requesting a minor addition to the template, in order to correct the link for Civil parishes in Scotland, which are currently displayed alongside a link to Civil parishes in England. The problem is that the template isn't specific in which civil parishes may be applied to civil_parish, within the infobox. Scottish places can therefore be assumed to be allowed to use this code. However, the link within the infobox, when live, is specific to England. I would like the addition to be made within this section:

***** Administrative divisions (except constituencies) *****

    ***** Parish (level 5) *****

This is the addition which I would like to be made:

 -->{{#if:{{{civil_parish_scotland|}}}    |<tr class="mergedtoprow"><th>[[Civil parishes in Scotland|Civil parish]]</th><td>{{{civil_parish_scotland}}}</td></tr>}}<!--
 -->{{#if:{{{civil_parish_scotland1|}}}   |<tr class="mergedrow"><th></th><td>{{{civil_parish_scotland1}}}</td></tr>}}<!--

Documentation

The "Full syntax" section should have this addition:

| civil_parish_scotland =               <!-- If place within a parish. Use link (e.g. [[Odd Rode]]). -->
| civil_parish_scotland1 =              <!-- (if place extends to another parish; use link) -->

The "For optional features" section should be overwritten with the following, in place of the current civil parish subsection:

|-
| Civil parish or Community
| civil_parish OR civil_parish_scotland OR community_wales ([[Community council#Wales|?]])
|-

The "Template data" section should have this addition:

"civil_parish_scotland": { "label": "civil parish scotland", "description": " for places within a SCOTTISH parish. Use a link, e.g. [[Odd Rode]]", "type": "string", "required": false },
"civil_parish_scotland1": { "label": "civil parish scotland1", "description": " for SCOTTISH places with more than one parish. Use a link.", "type": "string", "required": false },

Notes: It may also be worth future consideration to deprecate civil_parish and civil_parish1, in favour of civil_parish_england and civil_parish_england1, and possibly similar elsewhere, if necessary. Future consideration may also be given to a possible link for the Scottish community councils, to help provide context.

Regards, EP111 (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks are due to EP111 for attempting to address this problem. I am not 100% sure it is the right solution and I have added a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#UK Infobox as there may be others who want to comment. Ben MacDui 16:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

(as a casual watcher of this page) As noted at User talk:EP111#Parishes, I don't think this is a good idea. Civil parishes in England and communities in Wales both have statutory powers. Civil parishes in Scotland no longer exist (they were abolished in 1929), and their most recent equivalent, the community councils (which were created in 1973), have far less importance than the similarly-named bodies of Wales. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

(with my TE hat on) Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: As a Template Editor, what would you advise to do, under the circumstances? I'm certain that the difference between the current documentation and the outcome, at the very least, needs to be solved. Please let me know when you have a solution. EP111 (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

What part of the documentation suggests that civil parishes are applicable to Scotland? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: The fact that there are no mention of specifics, in the documentation, is enough to imply that it's applicable to everywhere in the UK, as it is a UK infobox. If it's specific to one country within the UK (i.e. England, according to the adjoining civil parish link), then it should say so, explicitly, as it does in other parts of the infobox documentation. I hope that helps. EP111 (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The |civil_parish= parameter is surely only applicable where a civil parish actually exists. In Scotland, they don't, and haven't done for 85 years. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I appreciate your position, however we seem to be seeing problem from opposite sides. There is nothing in the documentation to state that it should only be applied to civil parishes which still exist, and there is also nothing in the documentation to state that it should only be applied to England. If that is the case in both instances, could you please make it be stated as such, in the documentation, just for clarification? I'm certain that this would remove the problem. Regards, EP111 (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested edit to 'Website' field heading

The guidelines require "Council website for place (specifically)", but the text simply shows "Website".

This is misleading for many smaller settlements, where the council website (if there is one) is merely concerned with the governance of the town/village - and given the few powers that are devolved to town/parish councils, this is often a fairly small subject matter. (I write as a town councillor!) Meanwhile, the town/village may have its own community website which gives a wider and more informative representation of the settlement.

I would therefore suggest that the infobox text is changed from "Website" to "Council website".

--ChaRleyTroniC (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Is there a consensus for this? Infoboxes are intended to have as little arbitrary text in there as needed, and adding more text is generally controversial. Please link to or establish a consensus first please. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This was raised at Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place/Archive_15#.22Website.22 and received no objections, or indeed comments of any other sort. What would you suggest as a means of obtaining consensus in such circumstances? ---ChaRleyTroniC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.192.148 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I would check with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography and see if consensus can be achieved their as that is the parent to the apparently defunct task force listed at the top of this page. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 15:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested edit: update of European Parliament wikilink

There needs to be an update, replacing the existing wikilink to List of members of the European Parliament for the United Kingdom, 2014–19. (At the moment the infobox links to 2009-14.) Quite surprised it hasn't already been done. Argovian (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

civil parishes outside england

The civil parish row is linking to Civil parishes in England irrespective of whether or not the civil parish relates to England or to one of the subordinate countries; e.g. Dunblane. 80.42.10.16 (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

See #Template-protected edit request on 3 January 2015. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't get it. The civil_parish_scotland doesn't work. 80.42.10.16 (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That's because there isn't a parameter of that name, which is in turn because there have not been civil parishes in Scotland since 1929. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That is false. Parish councils were abolished in 1929, but the civil parish as a unit still exists. Zacwill16 (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

They do not have administrative function, which is the purpose of the hierarchy that is provided by this infobox. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it? It includes lieutenancy areas, which are also units used for statistical and ceremonial purposes but not for administration. Zacwill16 (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there another more appropriate Scottish or Welsh template users can use? If not, this will need to be fixed. These units are still used for statistical and historical purposes, and are thus of encyclopedic interest. Even if that weren't the case, the current model template is confusing because the template is a UK one and there is no indication except from the link to the English article that the intent of 'civil_parish' is only to cover English civil parishes. The confusion is increased by the existence of the following three articles: Civil parishes in Scotland, Civil parishes in Wales, Civil parishes in Northern Ireland (the last two redirects, admittedly). Puny little pointless strongholds of barbarity these might be when compared to England, but not all editors are necessarily of that mind. 80.42.10.16 (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No; {{Infobox UK place}} is for the whole UK - having a separate template for Scotland or Wales would be a WP:CFORK. This template has many parameters that are specific to England, to Scotland, to Wales, and to Northern Ireland. For example, places in Wales would use the |community_wales= parameter, because in Wales, the community has a defined place in the governmental hierarchy, on a level with the English civil parish. Scotland has no bodies at that level. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You are not addressing the problem. 80.42.10.16 (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am. Parameters like |civil_parish= and |community_wales= are concerned with local government hierarchy. The former civil parishes of Scotland are not part of this, nor does it have an equivalent level of local government: the 32 council areas of Scotland are not further subdivided into anything that has administrative powers or legislative responsibility. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you've said that already. I get it. It doesn't detract from the fact that 'These units are still used for statistical and historical purposes, and are thus of encyclopedic interest. Even if that weren't the case, the current model template is confusing because the template is a UK one and there is no indication except from the link to the English article that the intent of 'civil_parish' is only to cover English civil parishes. The confusion is increased by the existence of the following three articles: Civil parishes in Scotland, Civil parishes in Wales, Civil parishes in Northern Ireland (the last two redirects, admittedly).'

Yes, the English units are more administratively important. Great point. Make it another 20 times if you want. But after that, please address my points about the link being confusing and the non-English equivalents having encyclopedic significance. 80.42.10.16 (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

All the geographic units (between parish and sovereign state) listed on the template are current administrative regions - therefore only English CPs belong there. However, that does not mean Scottish CPs cannot be placed elsewhere. The parish may well be the unit for the population data, useful for searches (eg Historic Scotland) etc. Quite frankly, its much more useful to provide the CP for Scottish places than the links to the 3 emergency services. In England those are minor, but potentially useful, geographic subdivisions. In Scotland - it just says its in Scotland, and they add no value whatsoever.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is just more or less repeating what Redrose said. It's a post facto justification of a flaw in the template design. And it's still not addressing the points. What's so hard to understand? Whether or not civil parishes outside England are of the same encyclopedic interest, they are still of some encyclopedic interest and they are all 'civil_parishes'. It doesn't matter what the private thoughts about its use are to Redrose, the 'civil_parish' is not just English, so you are confusing people. Three people have already brought the matter up. Dunblane is still in a civil parish, and that civil parish is not one of the Civil parishes in England. Now, if you say, 'yes, this confuses people, the designers messed up, but I don't care' that at least addresses the point.

I would attempt to fix this, but unfortunately an administrator has subverted the ability of anonymous users to contribute to the improvement of the template here. 80.42.10.16 (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It's protected because it's a heavily used template, with 21278 transclusions; see the protection log. The |community_wales= parameter was added a little over six years ago as a result of this discussion. Notice how the proposer demonstrated a justification for the parameter; notice also how they didn't repeat themselves. Now, if you can identify a level of local government in Scotland or Northern Ireland which has administrative powers roughly on a level with those of an English civil parish or a Welsh community, we can look at adding a suitable parameter. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Still not addressing my point. If you don't think confusing people matters, come out and say it instead of just ignoring the point and repeating the thing you've said already. Surely it is better to rename the unit "civil_parish_england" or take some similar measure than to have this discussion every so often. You could even link it to a Civil parishes in the United Kingdom dab page instead of the England one, and you'd essentially solve the same problem without the mass bot editing. There's no ideological issues at stake here, it's just about getting the design right for users who aren't Redrose / other template aficionados (or indeed others who think Scottish civil parishes might be worth noting). Do you think I will be the last to raise this? 80.42.10.16 (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Instead of just repeating "not addressing my point", instead try and make your position clearer? It appears to me you don't have a single point here, but two points:

1. It would be useful to add non-English CPs to this template.
2. The existing parameter for English CPs is inappropriate

Those are two entirely separate matters. Point 1 needs some sort of consensus to be developed (eg on WP:UKGEO) before any change to the template can even be considered. Point 2 could be resolved by a number of approaches including, but not limited to:

• Generalising the parameter to include non-English CPs
• Changing the parameter call to be explicitly English
• Changing the documentation to be explicitly English

The first of these options is contingent on gaining consensus on the other issue. The other options are viable without that consensus, and can be discussed (and implemented). Treating this as two separate discussions is likely best way to resolve your concerns.

Note also that the issue in point 1 is something which can be addressed. The fact they are not current, administrative, units does not mean they cannot be included somewhere. It means careful treatment would be needed, but it does not mandate exclusion.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are posting now, that's not what I am saying. I've made several attempts to explain this. The current parameter is for all UK civil parishes, the problem is that it only links to one country's civil parishes, England's. Now, here you are rationalising why this is OK, but whether you/Redrose like it or not, this is a design flaw and the parameter is still for UK civil parishes not just the English ones, despite the fact the link only links to the English ones (something the normal editor only discovers after adding it to an article link Dunblane). There is no way for ordinary scum editors to tell that the superior template nerd beings only want the field used for English parishes. What's so hard to understand? What more needs to be explained? Civil parishes exist in the UK outside England. This field links only to England. Civil parishes exist in the UK outside England. This field links only to England. Civil parishes exist in the UK outside England. This field links only to England. 80.42.10.16 (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

As a further note, I am not going to spend much more pressing this. Despite some attempts to complicate the issue, it is a very straightforward design flaw with a series of fairly straightforward solutions. It's not all that much of a big deal I suppose if a few scumbags like myself are confused and have to go through this when trying to fix it, but I'm not sure I understand why it is worth being obstinate and defensive for this either. I am not the first to bring this problem up. If there was any sense I would be the last, but it will be you two having to do the "explaining" all over again when someone else comes with the same issue. 80.42.10.16 (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The parameter is not designed for anything but English Civil Parishes. That means use of the parameter, as it stands, in Dunblane is an incorrect use of the template. I agree with you when you say the template is poorly designed on this matter.

The back-end of the template can be adjusted to make the fact that is an incorrect use readily apparent (one of many options is to change it|civil_parish_england=.

The actual function of the template could also be changed - and scottish CPs included, possibly even in the same parameter, but there would need to be a consensus for that.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Glad you recognise my point now. The template is a UK template with a civil parish parameter. Therefore the parameter is for all civil parishes in the UK anywhere, England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, historic, present, etc. And indeed, the problem with people saying that "the parameter is actually for English units" or "it was only designed for English units" or "using it in Dunblane is wrong" is, as you recognise, that there is no way of knowing that except by tracking down designers and asking them. Otherwise, it's just a matter of assertion, even if it is true as a fact. Like if a madman on Wikipedia decided the parameter was "actually for Lincolnshire civil parishes", he'd have the same problem (even if, in this case, it would be a false claim). There is no way that anyone else, living in this universe at least, could know the parameter was actually just for Lincolnshire civil parishes. A well designed template would not, unlike the template as it stands, raise this problem. 80.42.10.16 (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I'm inclined to change the parameter to explicitly say "_england", as a harmless, first step to deprecating |civil_parish=. I see no reason to not make such a change.

As for Scottish CPs - they are not the same as English ones so cannot be used identically, but could be included somewhere if there is consensus. I am tempted to start a general review of what is included on this template, I am not sure its optimal.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing in the current version of this template's documentation to say that |civil_parish= is for use in England only. Fixing that omission would avoid the confusion being discussed here. A further step could be to modify the template to hide all parameters that aren't compatible with the value of |country=. -- Dr Greg  talk  00:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The obvious solution is to change the link to Parish (administrative division) and then use the same parameter for all British civil parishes. Zacwill16 (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The page Civil parish (disambiguation) should be moved to Civil parish, which is currently a redirect to Civil parishes in England. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Coordinates display

As seen on Pound Green, |coordinates_display=inline,title does not work as expected. Can someone assist, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It works fine for me in Chrome. --John (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@John: When you say "works fine", are you seeing the coordinates in the infobox? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It shows up at the top of the page. --John (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Label position on map

The current version defaults to {{{label_position|right}}} if nothing is specified. Unfortunately this overrides the code in {{Location map}} which can automatically default to "left" for labels that are too close to the east edge of the map. In the sandbox I have placed a new version which does not default to "right". You can check the effect on the testcases. It fixes a problem with the Wick and Monmouth examples, and makes no difference to the others. Unless anyone objects, I'll raise an edit request to install this new version. -- Dr Greg  talk  15:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Replace

{{#if:{{{label_position|}}}|{{{label_position}}}|right}}

by

{{{label_position|}}}

in both places where this appears, as discussed immediately above this request. The current version of the sandbox implements this change. I proposed this 18 days ago and nobody has objected. -- Dr Greg  talk  00:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Done Alakzi (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

civil_parish2

Request -->{{#if:{{{civil_parish2|}}} |<tr class="mergedrow"><th></th><td>{{{civil_parish2}}}</td></tr>}}<!-- is inserted after the similar code for civil_parish1. This is required for Gilsland, which has territory in three parishes. EP111 (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done EP111: Please update the documentation, etc. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. EP111 (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)