Template talk:Infobox UK place/doc/Archive 1

page layout

I think it might be a good idea to give several sample documentations with the userbox used in different contexts. Despite it's ultimate simplicity, its appearance is quite imposing at present. DJR (T) 10:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking exactly the same thing. Might be good to start a list of need-to-haves. Please add any more important permutations. MRSC • Talk 10:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English location in shire district
English location in metropolitan borough
English location in London borough
English location in Unitary authority
English location in parish
English location that is a parish
Scottish location
Welsh location

I suppose you could add:

English location in Greater Manchester (use Manchester mapping function)
Cornwall location (illustrate Cornish language function)

DJR (T) 11:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow we need to make clear what are the minumum requirements in terms of data to make it work in each case. MRSC • Talk 12:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We might as well take the opportunity to tabulate them here... I'll start with what I can think of off the top of my head (i.e. I'll have no doubt missed lots out) and we can work from here. Obviously italics imply optional fields. DJR (T) 17:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "English location that is a parish" Is the intention that the template be used for articles of places that are 'solely about a civil parish? If so, a lot of the fields that might otherwise be filled might be left empty, and so the way the infobox behaves under those circumstances might be usefully considered. There should also be some guidance as to what to do with the latitude and longitude of places that might extend over a large area of the country (e.g., take the rough centroid, but described in layman's terms - such as "the centre of the area"). The other stuff can be placed in the main article. For articles that are solely civil parishes we have two main cases: (a) articles that contain at least one main settlement, but for which a separate article about the civil parish was deemed useful (an example being Odd Rode in Congleton (borough)), and articles about a civil parish that contains no settlements of note (an example being Kings Marsh in Chester City District). I can get on and write articles for them using the new templates if that would help with the testing. DDStretch (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London place

official_name
region
country
london_latitude
london_longitude
os_grid_reference
london_borough
london_borough1
london_borough2
london_borough3
london_borough4
dial_code
postal_town
postal_district
postal_code
constituency_westminster
constituency_westminster1
constituency_westminster2

Manchester place

official_name
region
country
manchester_latitude
manchester_longitude
os_grid_reference
dial_code
postal_town
postal_district
postal_code
constituency_westminster
constituency_westminster1
constituency_westminster2

England location in a shire county

official_name
county
region
country
uk_latitude
uk_longitude
os_grid_reference
dial_code
postal_town
postal_district
postal_code
constituency_westminster
constituency_westminster1
constituency_westminster2

Required fields and automation

Under Automated features there exists a 2 column tabular list of Feature against Required Fields which seem to indicate which fields make which features work. To me that is not what should go into this section. It should list which fields are required, which fields are optional, and lastly, what additional automated features are activated by which fields. I would like to find what is the basic minimum that can be used to make this template work. I'm not sure this documentation does that. Frelke 11:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Languages

Will these templates work in other language Wikipedias? Uncle Montezuma 16:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheshire map

This map appears now to be finished, and it is looking good. Many thanks to all who worked on it. I've noticed it hasn't been "enabled" yet, though, and so I'm about to attempt to do this myself. Could someone just check any attempt by myself that they see, and correct it if I seem to have mucked it up at all? Many thanks. DDStretch (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]