Template talk:Infobox settlement/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Wikimedia Commons

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

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

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

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

Right now I use

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

I would like to to see inside Infobox.:

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

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

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

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

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

I added, temporary, line inside Infobox

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

to show you expected display.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rounding

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minor code cleanup

{{editprotected}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Linking mayor's name automatically

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two more to merge?

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

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

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

Um, discuss?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice for templates calling this one

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

Some thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Pigsonthewing you raise three points;

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

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

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

Additional parameters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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