Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Should the old templates be deprecated using Template:tdeprecated? Converting over 2500 odd templates is going to be a big enough task without editors unwittingly adding further instances. Pit-yacker 23:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Think that is a good idea and then when replaced they should all be put up for TfD as unused. Regan123 00:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I was thinking this myself. MRSC • Talk 06:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And now this has been reverted. Regan123 22:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Owain has reverted England infobox now. Pit-yacker 13:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And again others are reverting the deprecated tag. How about just TfD now? Regan123 22:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm half tempted to agree. However, the major problem is that there are still something like 1750 articles using the old template (It is worth note that the number is down from > 2100). Pit-yacker 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How does one use the AWB to help with the roll out? It would be helpful if those with the knowhow could post here; I'm certainly willing to help, which would aid in reducing this number towards a TfD. Jhamez84 22:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The AWB pages are here: WP:AWB. You can download from here: [1]. You can download and have a look at it immediately but need to register at WP:AWB pages before you can connect to Wikipedia with it. The idea is that it loads a page, does changes automatically and you just confirm the changes to save.

I have produced a script at User:Pit-yacker/Sandbox3 that automates a great deal of the change-over. You can copy and paste to create an XML file which you load into the settings. My file isnt perfect it will require manual invention at times, and there also seem to be one or two issues with it putting new lines in, however, I'm not sure that some of the problems arent bugs in AWB and the newlines problem doesnt show in the outputted article anyway (only the source).

IMHO, besides the negative things said above it is def a lot quicker than doing it manually. Hope this helps Pit-yacker 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's worry about doing TFD after we have converted all the articles over. With a few contributors using AWB it shouldn't take that long. The depreciated tags have been removed from the legacy templates but there hasn't been any explanation aside from a vague claim of "no consensus", which I would say is dispted by the TFD result for this template (which to some extent gave a remit to replace the others) and certainly by the call to comment on the legacy templates and the extensive discussions here. MRSC • Talk 23:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't run Windows, but Gnu/Linux, and so I can't make use of this bot. But if there is software that I could use, or if I could help in any other way, I'll be happy to do so.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Myself and User:Regan123 have both been granted permission to use the AWB. I've copied and pasted the script aforelinked, but when I attempt to load the XML file, it says there is an error in the file. I'm just copying the whole sandbox page, pasting into an XML, saving then trying to load. Is there something with this process which I'm missing out or doing wrong? Jhamez84 01:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If you havent already, try:

1. Click Edit
2. Copy contents of edit box
3. Paste to notepad
4. Save file in Notepad to something.XML (substitute something for something else if you lik :) )
5. In AWB select File->Load Settings and select the file. I have uploaded a version where the typo checks arent set as downloading these can cause the programme to freeze for a short time. Pit-yacker 01:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's worked a treat.... but please forgive me.... what are the next steps to start converting? It seems terribley complicated! By posting here I hope other users can also pick up the instructions. Jhamez84 01:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1. You need to make a list of articles to process. (Bottom Left Section of Window). This can be done in various ways. Up until now I have previously gone by category (e.g. Just loaded in "Towns in X") select category in "Make from" drop down list and then in the Category text-box below put the Category name and click make list. To me this is useful, as most the details are the same for each article so I dont constantly need to stop and check. However, part of Captain Scarlet's problem earlier was from me doing this - he obviously has a lot of towns in South Yorkshire on his watch list and this caused them all to jump up. An alternative way to do it is just on the basis of what Transcludes to Template:Infobox England place.
2. Next you need to click on tab "(3) Start" (bottom middle of window)
3. Click the "Start the process" button
4. AWB will go through articles in the list you made.
5. When it comes to one that contains Infobox England place it will make the changes (for as many rules as will work) and display the difference in the top of the window.
6. You can then edit the article with automated changes in bottom right. As I have said previously, my "script" isnt perfect and it wont catch non-standard behaviour, and there appear to be one or two newline issues with AWB. So it is worth quickly checking over the edits.
7. Once you are happy with them, (you also can preview if you like using the preview button (bottom middle of window)) you can save the changes by click the big green save button.

Hope this helps Pit-yacker 01:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. This works a treat; I've already converted around a hundred ;). Jhamez84 01:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded a revised edition of the settings which should spot the West Midlands region problem (i.e. the region for West Midlands takes a different form to all the others). As before, the file is at User:Pit-yacker/Sandbox3 Pit-yacker 03:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've now registered for AWB, in order to help the cause, but I can't get it to run without crashing. Don't think its the script, it seems to be the computer. Is there an AWB helpdesk?–MDCollins (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have put a message in the right place. Is it crashing without the Infobox setting files? According to AWB pages it may be something to do with the installation of .Net on your computer? Pit-yacker 18:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Its crashing with everything I try and use it for. Sometimes I can get 10 mins worth out of it, other times I'm lucky to get 10 secs. I'm solely using IE for a minute and don't even have firefox up, but that doesn't seem to make any difference! –MDCollins (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

AWB isn't picking up North Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset as UAs. They are outputting as shires Regan123 16:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The script looks for the presence of DistrictType to decide what to do. If it doesn find one it just defaults to shire_county. I have written a specific fix for BANES and N Somerset as these all seem to lack a district typoe.Pit-yacker 18:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just read a message here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes from someone who is trying to re-write the Scotland Infobox. I've added a short reply pointimng him here, but thought it might be an idea to alert people to this just in case they have something more than what I've written to add.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the Scotland place infobox now considered defunct then? I have used the template for the Aberdeen article, but have some problems with it. Having looked at the city infoboxes from other countries I found details that I included into the Scottish infobox such as; vehicle registration codes, population density and the distance from capital cities (in Aberdeen's case Edinburgh and London). This extra information is most clearly seen in the Aberdeen article where they have been included.

I also have one other problem in that in the Scottish place infobox, the titles of each piece of information sit on one line (such as 'European Parliament' or 'Scottish Parliament'), is it possible to make them sit on one line only?

Are there plans/consensus on whether or not to include these features? I quite like the Scottish infobox as I can understand it for editing. I find code for Infobox UK place quite hard to understand. Bobbacon 19:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

See Lewis for a Scottish place using the new template. MRSC • Talk 20:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed what this template is about and I agree with it in principle. I do however think for simplicities sake it would be easier to have individual country templates. There are also problems- for example the police and fire fields did not fill when i tried it for Aberdeen.

Although there has been a discussion on the Scotland place talk page, I do not believe consensus is achieved with only 3 contributers. I will watch this template for now, but continue to use Scotland place until my issues can be resolved (such as those in my previous post). Bobbacon 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to show the syntax you used on Aberdeen, as the services should work ok. It would be very easy to add any of the fields you have added on the Scotland template to this one. MRSC • Talk 06:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It might be as simple as not giving linked entries for certain fields - that was what I found when I tried it with some articles (not in Scotland). Adding linked entries was sufficient to fix it and I altered some of the documentation very recently to make sure this was clear.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done some work on the documentation, but I would encourage everyone to add to it anything they think would be useful. MRSC • Talk 15:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Today (19th March) a lot of edits are being made to the template by User:Bobbacon. I'll invite him to keep us informed as to what he is doing here, but I do tyhink it might have been an idea to inform us straightaway.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone else has now reverted all the edits by User:Bobbacon because it apparently broke the infobox. The breaking of it seemed to prompt some users (from reading some edit logs) to revvert the change from old infobox to new infobox, because the new one appeared to be broken. A message about going via this talk group before editing the infobox might be in order, perhaps?  DDStretch  (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

All sorted now.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[2] I though the TFD and lengthy discussions from a call to comment seemed to be saying this template should be rolled out over all the UK? What barriers stand in the way that still need to be worked through? MRSC • Talk 06:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This template has been developed in isolation over a mere 22 days. No attempt to discuss it with the various Wikipedia Notice boards has been made. A few people have commented here, but many more have no idea this is being worked on at all, let alone rolled-out. Its roll out would result in the mass removal of verified information that many people have worked on. This is clearly against the spirit of Wikipedia. If these unliateral actions continue there will be no action other than formal arbitration. Owain (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"This is clearly against the spirit of Wikipedia." You mean actions like campaigning for the straw poll, resulting in 2 people of 8 who were contacted voting (with you) and yet not disclosing that you had posted a message on their talk pages alerting them. Furthernore, that you had only told them of the infobox development when a straw poll had been announced? How "against the spirit of Wikipedia" is that? (WP:CANVASS gives details of the guidance about this. The following section from that article states: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice. However, excessive cross-posting goes against current Wikipedia community norms. In a broader context, it is unwiki. "¹. Wikipedia editors are therefore not to engage in aggressive cross-posting in order to influence votes, discussions, requests for adminship, requests for comment, etc.". Or, perhaps, this: Wikipedia:Survey notification: "Anyone contacted should mention in the poll that they were contacted." point c of the guidelines, although this is inactive, it is still useful.)  DDStretch  (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think MRSC has attempted to contact anyone who might be interested. Rather than blathering, why not suggest places where further consultation is needed. The template seems to me to be a product now, rather than a concept. People can see examples for their locality. I think MRSC has involved as many as possible in a collaborative exercise. The spirit of wiki is collaboration, rather than obstruction. Kbthompson 12:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree, if discussions are needed, they should perhaps be placed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have omitted a principally important WikiProject — one which undoubtedly inspired the creation of the other WikiProjects, directly or indirectly (31st of August 2006[3]; 15th of September 2006[4]; 10th of January 2007[5] and 11th of January 2007[6]) and was in turn inspired by WikiProject Australia — 25th of April 2006[7] and introducted the Mathbot functionality (on the 31st of August 2006 from experimentation on a city WikiProject[8] in early August) for article assessment thanks to inspiration from work on WikiProject The Beatles and WikiProject Adelaide. Its not hugely supported currently, due to the small population presumably, but it does exist. Please bear that in mind and help this WikiProject out. The WikiProject in question is the Northern Ireland WikiProject. -- Mal 13:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my omission. I recall trying to find out if there was such a project, but couldn't find it on the searches I did. I must have overlooked it somewhere. I'm glad it now has got mentioned.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Several WikiProjects, including NI, have since been contacted, per further down this talk page. Hope that helps. Jhamez84 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, a general consensus has been achieved, as the (many) people involved should arguably represent a cross-section of the whole community. I get the feeling that some people wouldnt be satisfied with a national referendum, and will continue blocking tactics until they get the result they want. Wikipedia would grind to a halt if everyone who might conceivably have an interest in a change was surveyed. In the case of at least places in England it arguably did, with new infoboxes not being deployed whilst there was an ongoing development of a new box. Pit-yacker 13:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I never campaigned for a straw poll; I campaigned for a life-for-like continuation of the present data contained in the infoboxes. People need to be alerted as to what's going on as this has not been widely discussed. The fact that the individuals themselves didn't mention in the post that I contacted them is not my doing! In fact I posted on their talk pages to leave an above-board audit trail - I could quite easily have contacted them by email. This infobox still has numerous flaws which the present ones do not. It has not been discussed widely enough. The picture is being painted of anew template that I am trying to add controversial data to. In reality it is an effective change to existing templates resulting in the removal of verifiable data that many people (who have not had a chance to comment) have worked on. Owain (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As is usual, you concentrate on a small, insignificant issue, in the hope that the larger issue will be passed over. You campaigned for a certain response on the straw poll. Does that clarification make it better? Address the issue that is covered by WP:CANVASS and Wikipedia:Survey notification. The users User:Arcturus, User:Lofty, User:MonMan, User:Sloman, User:Modest Genius, User:Stringops, User:Trilobite, and User:Lancsalot were contacted by you on 8th March, after the vote had been called. None had contributed to the discussion before then, although you could have easily contacted them before the call for votes to join in the discussion. Instead you seem to have contacted them in order to get a result you were happy with. Only two voted, and only one of these then made any contribution. Now that the vote has failed to give you what you want, you are trying more disruption and reversion under the guise of wanting further debate. Your contributions are totally inappropriate, though I do not say that further discussion is entirely inappropriate with respect to information and customisation.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not campaign for a certain response, I asked for their input. Go and re-read my text! These individuals had previously been involved in historic county-related articles and as they were not being consulted the straw poll was heavily skewed in favour of the small number of editors that were attempting to remove it from this template. Let's get this straight - I am not the one causing the disruption, I am trying to maintain verifiable data. You cannot replace existing templates and deprecate them when the replacement provides less functionality. As I have previously stated I have no objections to a unified template that makes editors' lives easier, but that is clearly not the motive here, otherwise the existing information would have been carried across as-is rather than being surreptitiously removed. Owain (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We can add User:Yorkshire Phoenix (194.203.110.127) to the list of people you contacted now. I missed that one before, because of archiving issues.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Although I didn't vote, Owain has brought this to my attention, though perhaps not in the way he intended. While I would prefer the traditional counties to be included in the infobox, it looked to me like this was a substantial improvement which was being worked on by a competent bunch of people. I therefore left you alone to get on with it ;) Modest Genius ^talk 16:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The new box does look better than the old one. However this is no excuse for deleting a huge amount of verifiable information based on original research and a simple majority vote. Iceage77 18:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What is this "original research" which you mention. It is no use just mentioning that a criticism would apply here without saying exactly how it applies and what the target of the criticism is. Also, I think the straw poll is used on occasions quite legitimately to establish a formal consensus on wikipedia.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, Wikipedia is not a democracy. If you dispute Encyclopedia Britannica's treatment of historic counties you need to provide some reliable sources backing this up. Iceage77 18:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is oversimplified by saying that anyone disputes Enclyclopedia Britannica. The issue of the Infobox is over what in formation to include, given that it is to provide a useful summary set of information about a settlement or place as it currently is. Anything to do with its histiory, if people so desire, could be, and should be put in an appropriate place within the main bosy of the article. That is where it belongs: in the history section. And, to jump the gun, the "logic chopping" response that "Historic counties" are current information, since they will always be currently historic is laughable. If you are tempted, I wouldn't advise attempting to try that one on (I've seen attempts to use that fallacious argument in places).  DDStretch  (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* "Historic" in this sense means "with a lot of history". "Historical" means "former". Take a look at Britannica's Salisbury article - it states "district, administrative and historic county of Wiltshire, England, centred on the historic city of Salisbury". Are you suggesting that this means Salisbury is no longer a city? Take a look at the Avon or Cleveland articles, they clearly state "former administrative county" whereas all references to the historic counties are in the present tense. Owain (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, as I wasn't talking about cities at all!  DDStretch  (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but the crux of your argument seems to be that as you think "historic" equates to "former" then the information you are seeking to remove isn't current. In reality both the dictionary and Britannica disagree with you. Owain (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should take Owain up on his offer of formal arbitration. We've twice now reached a group consensus (once by discussion and once by straw poll) which he has ignored. MRSC • Talk 15:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Before we can ask for formal arbitration, we need to go through the process of Mediation (WP:M). So, we need to file a request for mediation here: WP:RFM. It is possible that this will resolve the issue, in which case formal arbitration will not become necessary.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Other useful articles that might be read about dispute resolution include these: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, WP:RFC, WP:3 and WP:MC, though I suspect WP:RFC and WP:3 may not be good enough to use here, and so mediation may be best (given that this must be tried before any resort to arbitration occurs.).  DDStretch  (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You can go straight to WP:ARB if that seems most sensible, but they could reject the case and tell us to go to WP:M. I guess the nub of it is User:Owain says the consensus we came to in the discussion and the consensus we came to in the staw poll is not valid. We now seem to be having a discussion to see if there is a consensus that there was a consensus. Hmmm, I'm not sure which process would be best? MRSC • Talk 15:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I thought one always had to go via Mediation. If one can omit that, then I would say go direct to Arbitration, as a solution that is binding is required now, I think.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has been achieved in three ways now. By edits, by discussion and by straw polls. Despite this, User:Owain doesn't seem any closer to accepting the group decision. I feel his arguments about the subject are as fallacious as his argument that process has somehow not been followed. MRSC • Talk 11:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In what way are my arguments fallacious? The legitimacy of historic counties was verified ages ago, but MRSC still wants to use underhand tactics and slander to get references removed. The 1911 Britannica not only agrees that they exist but goes on to give exact acreages for them. The fact that they have no administrative function has no bearing on it, neither do ceremonial counties or civil parishes in Scotland but they are universally accepted as existing aren't they? The process is not "disagree with something, create your own version that excludes it, mark previous versions as deprecated". If you disagree with something discuss it rather than using such underhand tactics. Owain (talk) 13:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot accept the consensus we have reached and instead revisit your arguments about the veracity of your claims and, more significantly, claim that the collaborative process has been an underhand tactic by a single contributor. If you want to take the matter further I suggest you use a more formal channel. MRSC • Talk 14:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have put a note on the noticeboard for Scottish Wikipedians since no one else had. Lets see if they have any comments, but it is already being used on some Scottish articles anyway. It would be nice to have a quick and easy TfD on all of these. Regan123 15:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Notices about the creation and development of this template were posted on all legacy templates' talk pages right at the beginning of its implementation. I'd be tempted to suggest that people who really care have spoken, and those who haven't represent a vast majority of people who realise that ultimately, very little change is taking place - certainly not a significant enough change to warrant accusations of "underhand tactics". With all due respect, Owain should wake up and smell that consensus can change, and indeed has. DJR (T) 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I was against this template when I first heard about it, but reading about it and having it explained made me come around. As this is meant to be an encyclopedia and Scotland is currently part of the UK, it makes sense. However, I'd be even happier with an EU (or continental Europe)-wide infobox, but as has already been mentioned somewhere (unless I dreamed it) this could be a step towards that.

I suspect that much Scottish resentment to this current infobox comes from pro-independence people, a group I belong to, but it is also likely that a person's particular reasons for wanting independence will come into play. Personally, it's so that we can be a separate member of the EU rather than in a union in a union, so this template is not much of a problem for me; for others, it could be harder to accept this template.

Might I, therefore, suggest that we calm down on insisting it be used in Scotland until after this May's elections (just recommend it until then), where it will become clearer as to whether we are likely to get independence any time soon. If not, then from a neutral pov, this should definitely be used, if we are, then we may well just have to revert to the Scottish place infobox anyway. BTW, unless things change, the most likely answer in May will be "quite possibly, but not definitely". Just my €0.02 worth. MRM 07:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that is probably a fair enough solution in the interim - at the end of the day there is no absolute urgency in converting all templates to the new format. However, it is important to establish that it the longer term, a unified template does indeed represent the way forward and, as you say, there is technically nothing stopping this same template evolving into an EU-wide one. Of course, in practice I daresay it'd be a significantly bigger minefield than what has been presented by the Scots for this one...so the practicality of it might be questionable. DJR (T) 07:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added a map for the Tyne and Wear metropolitan county as a version of the old template exists with a Tyne and Wear map at Template:infobox North East England place. The reasons for creating that template appear to be the same as this the reasons for creating this template. IIUC, there appears to have been a misunderstanding that Greater Manchester and others had their own separate template? Pit-yacker 17:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to produce maps for any city-region of the UK in the same style of Greater Manchester and Greater London. Each would take me a few days. One thing we may want to consider is if we need consensus for whether we use a UK, or localised map in an infobox as places around the Wigan borough have seen revisions from one anonymous editor (and what appears to be a single purpose account) against a "citywide" map. Jhamez84 22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mow Cop is split between parishes, counties, and regions. However, there isn't any facility to have two regions. I don't know if this could be added (and I wouldn't know how to do it myself). Could an additional region field (region1?) be added. I only realised this when I tried it out just now. It would in this case have a knock-on effect with the Euro constituency. Mow Cop may be (one of?) the most extreme example(s) of this kind of split.

I've also realised that in these cases, which way round one enters the counties, etc, has a bearing on the filling-in of the Fire, Police, Ambulance, and Euro Constituency fields. Perhaps a note somewhere about this needs to be added, but I'm not sure where.  DDStretch  (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a real need to have more than one region specifiable.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This can be achieved. We did something simlar with the London boroughs that generate the London Assembly constituencies. MRSC • Talk 13:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how often it would be used, but Mow Cop is in a very unsual situation here, being split at so many levels of administrative structure. It needs to be both in the West Midlands and the North West regions.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I will add it as soon as I get a moment. MRSC • Talk 13:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it be more suitable to have a Mow Cop specific infobox using a similar style as this infobox? Just an idea for saving the syntax programming. Jhamez84 13:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That would probably ease the burden of work somewhat, so long as there are not many other places in a similar situation.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to MRSC for his attention to and solution to the problem of Mow Cop.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made it pick up the services too. In order for the second services to appear the shire_district3, shire_county3, etc. etc. have to be filled in. This is because there will be some places that although split, the two divisions will have the same services so there is no need to generate it twice. These cases can use shire_district1, shire_county1 etc. as they already did. MRSC • Talk 15:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The error that prevented the second county appearing is also corrected now. MRSC • Talk 20:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just attempted to change over Daresbury. It is in Halton (borough), which AFAICT is a unitary authority. Police and Fire dont appear to be working for this. Pit-yacker 23:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It needs a redirect bypass to work. Regan123 23:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If one looks at the Bolton article, and then say, Latchford, one can see that the fields in the infobox are spaced nice and evenly in Latchford, using single lines, but have double spacing in Bolton.

It's not limited to Bolton, Oldham is another example of lots of double spacing, and Milnrow is an example where just it's Metropolitan Borough field is doubled up. It's not a GM issue, as, for example, Moss Side and Farnworth are correctly spaced. Is this correctable? - As it doesn't add much weight to the reduced spacing inference, and looks somewhat (well very slightly) unsightly in some cases. Jhamez84 12:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is caused by the parliament constituencies all put in one field, rather than split out. I've corrected these examples. MRSC • Talk 13:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I spent about an hour last night using the "show preview" function to try to work out the fault. If I see it again, I'll fix it there and then according to you findings. Thanks again, Jhamez84 13:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Swindon seems to suffer from the same problem Pit-yacker 18:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Should be ok now. MRSC • Talk 20:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How does this template deal with the situation where there is an area and a settlement with the same name, but different statistics used for each. For example, where there is a village within a parish of the same name and a population figure for each of these?Mammal4 13:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a related issue: that of a civil parish which contains a number of settlements. As far as I can see, the census data normally gives population figures for the civil_parishes, but not separately for any settlements included within a given civil_parish. So putting this census-supplied figure in each settlement would be misleading. It is one of the issues that makes me think that there is a need for a civil_parish infobox, and a greater need to have, where appropriate, separate articles about civil_parishes and settlements in the cases where a civil_parish does not contain merely one settlement. I think the guidelines on the various "How to write..." guides do not cover these cases in sufficient detail, but I'd be happy to work on a specific one myself if there is any interest. I've been collating a list of useful information that a article just about a civil_parish might include, and which could be added to the "How to write about settlements..." sections in any sections dealing with Local Government or Administration. Would this be viewed here as a good idea? (I know this may not be the best place, but it will give a kind of response to base any planning on.)  DDStretch  (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I think there should be a seperate flexible infobox for any official division from parish right up to region. I don't see this infobox as being a substitute for that at the parish level. Population figures are by nature problematic. Although a straight figure is a nice thing to have in an infobox, ideally it should come with an explanation of exactly what output area it relates to. This could be achieved with the <ref></ref> tags. MRSC • Talk 15:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "how to write about (civil) parishes" would be a good addition to the UK Geography WikiProject. I'm a sucker for consistency however, and on these grounds would urge that they not be too detached from the "how to write about settlements guide". Perhaps it is worth raising this at the relevant talk page; the guide could explain the use of infoboxes for complex parish arrangements also?? Jhamez84 16:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is very similar to what I was thinking of. As for it not being so detached from the settlements guide, I was also thinking of basing it around a section that could be included within other articles (say settlements that are also the only settlement within a civil parish of the same name), and then suggesting how to "expand" or "customise" this section to make it a standalone article if required (for the more complex arrangements). I think that would rather nicely make the point that civil parishe and settlements are often closely related. I'll rough out something and then raise it on the talk page, so something concrete can be discussed right from the start, rather than it being just a vague intention at first which may be difficult to "get across" to others.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a set of infoboxes for parishes in Penwith a year or so back (see St Buryan). In this example there actually is population data for both the village and the parish which I think is useful to include, but it isn't always available for every parish. I would argue in this case that it isn't really a good idea to split the settlement article away from the parish as the two are so closely interlinked in terms of writing that it would lead to a lot of repitition between the two pages. I've also used the infobox as an opportunity to list what I've called secondary settlements in the parish. I don't think the UK place infobox covers either of these points Mammal4 17:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that north of the "parish line" (as the researcher Dorothy Silvester named it), civil parishes can tend to be larger than they are in the south, with multiple settlements within them. Some of these civil parishes are named after what could be called the "principal settlement", but some are not, and in some of these, there is no clear-cut principal settlement. So, we must be careful not to assume that there is always just one settlement per civil parish. In my experience, quite a few of these settlements already have articles, and for completeness, it is a good idea to have information about civil parishes as well, because of the role, duties, and responsibilities assigned to them in Local Government. Obviously some of these cases can be "solved" by having a "joint" article about the civil parish and the principal settlement, with sub-sections dealing with secondary settlements, but this is not always satisfactory. In quite a few cases, things like population figuers for the infoboxes for settlements, and the placement of articles into various categories used on wikipedia might become a bit "strained".  DDStretch  (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note. What should be done where a town is also a civil parish? I've put several Iboxes on towns which are also parishes (Southam, Towcester, Daventry, Leamington Spa) And I've put the name of the town in the parish field. Is this the right thing to do? G-Man * 20:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So long as the name of the town is the same as the name of the civil parish (I think this will usually be the case), what you have done is the same as what I and others have done for similar cases in Cheshire. Remember that for consistancy's sake (though it has no effect for this particular situation) use a link for the name of the civil parish.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is much point to putting in a link if it is a circular link to the same article. Perhaps putting in a link to the List of civil parishes in XXX county article would be a better idea? G-Man * 20:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the name of the civil parish is the same as the name of the settlement, but there are many cases where this need not be the case. If people find out about, and modify an existing use of an infobox when that existing use is one of the "settlement name = parish name" cases, then always putting in a link will help them get the correct way of specifying a link when the name of the civil parish is not the same as the name of the settlement. (Oh dear - I think that might be confusing.) I really think putting in a link to the list of parishes goes against what was agreed for the link, and I would strongly argue against changing the link so that it does that.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite follow. What I meant was, instead of linking the parishe name to itself, to put in a link like this in the parish field, for say the Southam article [[List of civil parishes in Warwickshire|Southam]]. G-Man * 21:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the field should be used for what it was designed for: the name of the parish in which the settlement is located. To put other stuff in would be potentially confusing to people who were using exiting templates as models from which to add templates to other articles. At the very least, the name of the entry as it appears in the formatted infobox as well as in the "source code" for the inforbox, would be quite confusing. If templates are constructed like, say the ones we plan to use for most of the settlememt articloes for Cheshire, the list of parishes would already be supplied or easily accessible there (see Knutsford, Winterley, and Chester, at the end, for these additional tenplates).  DDStretch  (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OK so what happens when a town is divided into several parishes. Say for example Milton Keynes or Burton on Trent? G-Man * 00:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You can make use of the extra parish field: civil_parish1. If you need more, you can ask for it to be implemented here (it is quite easily done, I suspect.)

How many parishes does the largest settlement you know of which is not a unitary authority contain? I have recently discovered that Burton on Trent has 7, although the central town area is just one civil parish, with the greater urban area encompassing the others.

However, Milton Keynes, which has 10, is now a unitary authority. So the article about that place might be better off being similar to the articles about Oxford or Warrington (for example) are. So articles about them could and perhaps should be treated at the "District" or "Borough" level of Local Government. In which case, I would use the ad hoc District Infobox that they tend to use, rather than this UK place infobox. If you want to continue to use this template, I would leave the civil_parish fields blank in the UK place Infobox, and handle the business of the parishes these areas contain in the main article, with perhaps devising and using appropriate additional templates, as I suggested with examples from Cheshire districts. If I were doing this, though, I really would prefer to use the ad hoc district infobox approach, as it would then make more clear the level of local government that area possesses. In any case, it seems to be clear that more civil_parish fields may be needed. The question is, how many more?  DDStretch  (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Er not quite. Milton Keynes is a town within the borough of Milton Keynes which is the unitary authority. I think having 19 entries in the parish field might be a bit excessive somehow. G-Man * 02:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

ok. I thought you meant the entire borough, and I didn't go and check, so my mistake. My apologies. In that case, I would omit the civil_parish fields entirely for the article about the town of Milton Keynes, and deal with the parishes in the text, as happens with the article for borough of Milton Keynes, and which, in fact, has already been done for the town. So, just use the new template, but omit the civil_parish fields. But for it being unparished, it is a problem that would have happened with Chester and the District it gives it name to (City of Chester, but the creator of the article got name wrong and needs sorting out in the near future to Chester City (district) or something.) It should happen with Warrington, but the unitary authority and the town are mixed up together in the same article at the moment, and it does cause problems.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems a reasonable template to use. However, certain unitary authorities such as the Scottish Borders or the Scottish Highlands, cover a huge area and it would be useful to have an idea on where certain places are within them. Eg it takes as long to drive from Thurso to Fort William as it does from London to Berwick upon Tweed, so placing a town within Sutherland or Lochaber would be helpful. Brendandh 16:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The templates that this one is supposedly replacing already have this field. However the proponents of this one have unilaterally decided to remove it and in doing will remove this valid data from all articles that use the existing templates. Owain (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

However the proponents of this one have unilaterally decided to remove it This is not true, for readers new to this debate. If one cares to look back over the discussions and archive discussions, you can see that consensus was reached on this point by at least three means, but User:Owain refuses to accept this. Consesnsus can change, and it did, but Owain refuses to accept this.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that this is an accurate summary. MRSC • Talk 13:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This template produces nonsense latitude for most of the UK (at the top right hand corner of the page). What on earth is "-0.76E"! It should be either the ugly "-0.76" or the friendly "0.76W". --Concrete Cowboy 18:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I admit it does seem a bit strange, I guess. For me, I have no problem, as my scientific background merely automatically knows that -0.7E must be 0.7W, and so i wouldn't call it nonsense, just non-standard. Not everyone is like that, however. I would suggest, like you do, some kind of check and editing, if possible, to change all negative numbers "E" into positive numbers "W".  DDStretch  (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have done a little bit of fiddling in my Sandbox. I think the following should achieve the desired effect if someone with a bit more template experience wants to verify it:

{{ #ifexpr: {{{longitude|}}} <0 | {{Coor title d|{{{latitude|}}}|N|{{#expr:{{{longitude|}}}*-1 }}|W|region:GB_type:city}} | {{Coor title d|{{{latitude|}}}|N|{{{longitude|}}}|E|region:GB_type:city}} }}

Pit-yacker 20:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Give it a go, then check Norwich and Milton Keynes (Bristol still using old infobox). If they are ok, let it stand. If not, revert - no real harm done. --Concrete Cowboy 13:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have tried the change. It appears to be working at Milton Keynes and Maidstone (Norwich doesnt use this infobox).Pit-yacker 14:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it work at Penryn, Cornwall and Falmouth, Cornwall...–MDCollins (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be good if the WSG84 longitude and latitude co-ordinates in this template could be presented using the Geo microformat in the mark-up. All that is required is for

<span title="Maps, aerial photos, and other data for 52.499° N -1.708° E">
52.499° N -1.708° E</span>

to become:

<span class="geo" title="Maps, aerial photos, and other data for 52.499° N -1.708° E">
<span class="latitude>52.499</span>° N <span class="longitude">-1.708</span>° E</span>

with the addition of two spans and three classes. Please let me know if you need further information. Andy Mabbett 22:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Infobox UK place template uses {{Coor title d}} to show the co-ordinates which in turn uses {{Coor d}}, so the best place to ask for this would be on at Template talk:Coor d - WOSlinker 23:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you- I will do so. Andy Mabbett 09:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[9] [10] [11] What is the problem here? MRSC • Talk 23:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No idea. I posted a notice and no one has objected. Certainly if I was the user who changed them I would revert straight back. Regan123 23:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[12] I'm not sure if this really explains what is going on. A a notice was put on the Scotland template talk page, notifying interested parties. What else should have been done, and more to the point, what is it that is objectionable about replacing the template? The unanimous TFD did not raise any concerns and we've had lots of discussions here. MRSC • Talk 00:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for the user cited to pass comment here. To stop further inferences of back room decisions, I'll personally post to the various, UK, Scots, Welsh and other related WikiProjects now. Jhamez84 01:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

All reverted again. There have been no objections bar one user. Other Scottish editors are using it. I suggest we just carry on. Regan123 12:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Mais oui! was asked to pass comment here ([13]), though it appears he has declined to engage in debate. I've also contacted multiple WikiProjects per below and still no objections. It seems continuing our work is therefore the right thing to do. Jhamez84 12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[14] [15] [16] He (and anyone else Scottish or otherwise) has been invited in various ways to discuss this, but now he claims there has been no discussion. The lengthy archived talk and TFD (which he instigated) would seem to disprove that. I think he just wants a seperate infobox for Scotland regardless of reason. It would be nice if he would come here and say so if that is the case; or, if there are substantive issues, make them known here. Thanks to Jhamez84 for broaching the subject on his talk page, but I'm afraid it seems to have been ignored. MRSC • Talk 15:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not surprised there have been 'no objections'. As a relatively new Scottish Wikipedian I have to say I do not really know what is going on here. I saw the announcement at WP:SCOWNB and have attempted to follow the various links but the discussions are clearly voluminous and complex. I do not use the infobox template myself, but if anyone simply altered the existing one on a page I was watching to a new one that I had no previous knowledge or understanding of, I might well revert it too. My limited understanding is that someone has designed a new infobox in the hope it may become a standardised UK one. I don't believe you can reasonably expect that to be either understood or supported by Scottish Wikipedians in general unless the discussion can be summarised simply and raised as a discussion at WP:SCOWNB. Perhaps the problem is solving itself, but if not, I hope this is helpful. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The UK Geography ([17]), Greater Manchester ([18]), Cheshire ([19]), Wales ([20]), Scotland ([21]), Northern Ireland ([22]), England ([23]), Bristol ([24]), Sheffield ([25]), West Midlands ([26]), UK Subdivisions ([27]), London ([28]), North East England ([29]), and finally... Cornwall ([30]) WikiProjects have all be contacted that a new infobox has been developed. There is no biased content in the posts I would like it to be known.

Apologies to those WikiProjects missed. I trust this qualifies as contacting the wider editting community for their involvement. Jhamez84 02:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a member of one of these above projects and although we have been contacted, nothing has been done in the way of for example, us refusing this new template. As far as I am concerned, this template is inferior and less esthetically pleasing than {{infobox England place}}. Any idea why items such as population are not present why polluting elements as postcode and phone dialling codes are? May I trust that my projects own location infobox has precedence over this project's? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the examples and the full syntax at the bottom of the page, there is scope for population. Also, this infobox auto-creates some of the required elements based on certain strings entered into the box. Just for the record, I have had nothing to do with the creation of this infobox, but quite like the way it works. –MDCollins (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Inwhich case whoever is AWStriggerhappy isn't using his scripting adequately and is ommitting information as he/she is converting. Since UK place infobox is redundant, I can only expect it to be replaced by its daughter infoboxes; Englad, Scotland and Wales? Then, as always with obscurely created infoboxes, I see no concertation. At one time everything is fine and dandy, a couple of hours later all hell's lose and half of my watchlist's been AWSed... There are talkpages for such things, one cannot implement these kind of infoboxes willy nilly. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There are genuine scripting problems it seems, but bringing this to our attention should enable someone with the technical knowhow to fix this. May I direct you to HERE which outlines the benefits of this template over the previously existing versions. You say the UK place infobox is redundant; quite the contrary, this infobox brings with it considerable benefits, rendering, in my opinion, the home nation versions redundant. Jhamez84 19:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In the new infobox, virtually all fields (including population) are optional so you dont get an endless list of empty boxes if they arent filled in. IMHO, this helps cut the box size down for smaller articles, where the previous box dominated the article. AFAICT, the only circumstance where there will be no population in the new box is if it wasnt previously defined in the others.

FWIW, I cant see what the fuss is about for what is for the most part a cosmetic change. If the changes had been implemented on the old template I doubt anyone would have bothered. IMHO a lot of the objections (although not all) are based on badly hidden political ideologies.

On that basis, if the changes had been made to the old template - would someone have to go to every one of about 2100 articles to ask permission every time they wanted to make a change to the template? I thought Wikipedia encouraged Boldness? IMHO Boldness is an important part of Wikipedia. Without it, on this and numerous other issues development would grind to a shuddering and complete halt whilst everyone with an interest had their say, and it would never start again as various parties with various agendas proposed various amendments. Articles would effectively be reduced to the lowest common denominator of acceptability - which in some cases would mean an article on a major city consisting of its name. (Scrub that - some cities they wouldnt even be able to agree on the name!

Pit-yacker 22:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are any issues with the England infobox, additional scripting to be added, please add it, do not impose UK place infobox. I am not a contributor to this template and I have only witnessed the forced implementation to this templte. I have now reverted twice this forceful implementation, modify the existing templates. There currently 576 articles that need to have the UK place infobox removed in favour of the three other place infobox available. Wikipedia encourages boldness and I am bold enbough to tell you I dislike this template. The problem is that since there was no concertation your boldness has triggered the immediate revert. Had the new infobox looked the same there would be no problem, but it doesn't. the problem is that this template was created as an unnecessary duplicate of what already exists, and this, out of nowhere. I am not expected to look into every forsaken project to see what random plans each project has. I see a random edit and implementation of a new template, it gets reverted. If you have a revolutionary template to implement (which this isn't) you'll have to work harder for it. Who knows, maybe they'll be a place infobox for each county... That would certainly make people who want everything to look the same 's task quite hard wouldn't it? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 02:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well if you think the template was created purely to duplicate the previous ones you obviously havent read any of the previous debate that discusses the changes and why it is better. You have also missed the reason why it looks different - the very wide consensus that the old one was far too big.

(ADDED after User:ddstretch) For example, the vast majority of articles had the same county repeated three times (and thats before spacing was considered). The way the template was wired together meant that the easiest way to approach the change would be to tear up the template and start again - The alternative being a very messy maze of code, which over time would just get more and more complicated. As for different infoboxes, the logical conclusion to your argument is that every article has its own one. Isnt similarity meant to be part of the point though? As well as being able to quickly pick up a standard set of basic facts, you can quickly compare two places. Thats not impossible if couldnt tell what is going to be one a particular article

Pit-yacker 02:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

So, apart from the cosmetic problems (it doesn't look as nice to you), and concentrating purely on the content of the new Infobox, are there any specific additions or omissions that you are objecting to?  DDStretch  (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

(By the way, I'm not intending to be at all aggressive in my question to you - I just think it is a good idea to get a complete view of your objections. So far, I've learned that you think it is not really necessary, that the process of implementing it has been badly handled, and that the look of it is not nice, and so the question about omissions or additions seems a useful way of rounding it off.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC))

Basically, if you want a grumpy old ma such as myself to be happy with what you're doing with little concertation, don't make your new product any different to the old one. Let me explain, scripting with IF statements is fine, there was however no need to any of this, just copy paste the code into the previous templates. See I'm exceedingly selfish, I don't actually care what the Scotish placename infobox looks like, I'm really just onto The English places. Do you think I'm going to accept this template which came outa nowhere? Looks like a Tesco club card points statement? Naaaah. Oh I'll have to revert the implementation a third time in more than 24 hours on South Yorkshire places oh yeah. It is also unlikely that Infobox UK place will be used on any places administered by my project since we divised our own (which does not comprise pollutin information such as postcode, dialling code, police force and the colour of the sky on Main Street). Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

One way to resolve this would be to nominate Template:Infobox Sheffield place for deletion on the basis of being superseded by this template. We can't nominate this one as it has only recently had a TFD and that came out with unanimous vote to keep, with several editors explicitly stating it should replace all other UK place infoboxes. MRSC • Talk 12:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox UK place}} will not be used in favour of {{Infobox Sheffield place}}. This has already been discussed between WP Sheffield and WP Geography UK (or similar). I find your attitude distgusting, take THIS template away. I find this project's members tiresome and will endeavour to remove this template as much as I can. Have fun war editing! I am not those editors who find that this template should replace all others and will see to it that it does not. This weekend sure looks like it'll be interesting. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I presume that the places you mean when you say "This has already been discussed between WP Sheffield and WP Geography UK (or similar)." is here, as I can find no discussion of this on the UK geography project talk pages. However, even the discussion on the Sheffeild project's talk page does not concern this new infobox, but merely is a discussion in which you give forceful criticism of most infoboxes relevant to UK settlements. Now, I may be mistaken, and so perhaps you could point us to the specific places where this discussion has taken place that allows you to state so categorically that "{{Infobox UK place}} will not be used in favour of {{Infobox Sheffield place}}."? It does seem to stray into places covered by WP:CIV, WP:POINT, and WP:OWN.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to do this the dirty way MRSC, so be it. May it be noted that this template is implemented by the sole consent of yourselves. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Captain scarlet has been blocked for 24 hours. MRSC • Talk 12:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC):

I like the way that the Sheffield template doesn't even tell you it where it is, or even that it is Sheffield!! –MDCollins (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added the template to TFD: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 17. MRSC • Talk 12:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

AFAICT giving a quick scan of the discussion. It seems this the Sheffield place template was created because of problems with the England template not this one. In which case, it is not correct to automatically assume that Sheffield Wikiproject (as opposed to Captain Scarlet alone) dont want the UK version. It also happens that the issues prompting the break appear to be exactly the same - i.e. the old one is too big. Pit-yacker 14:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Lewisskinner, is making highly comparable revisions to User:Captain scarlet. Many of the new infoboxes in and around Doncaster have been reverted on identical articles under the summary of "no consensus". It's ridiculous. Jhamez84 22:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

-- I wonder if it is the real Captain Scarlet? I'll never watch that show again! Jhamez84 02:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, no Lewis is not me... You can' thave paid much attention to his editing if you think that, neither are Chilisauce or angel1479. Just have no clue. Anyway, now you know than more than one person do not endorse you trigger happy implementation of this template. You didn't ask anyone before you did and now you're causing havock because if it. I'm glad I've made you wish not to watch the show ever again hahaha. Anyway, there is no concensus because you guys didn't ask anyone before implementing it, now you are surprised that you're being reverted. you contacted WP but begun implementation even before replies were registered. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a miseading summary, given the calls to comment ([31], [32], [33], [34]) on all legacy templates, long before implementation, the extensive discussions on this talk page and its archives from a range of editors and the Unanimous TFD consensus to keep this template over the others. MRSC • Talk 13:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a misleading summary, this section concerns contacting WP. You contacted the WP asking for feedback, you got the feedback and didn't care to take into consideration, hence the argument (still on going and not resolved until this tmeplate is removes from the heavens). Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we asked for concerns and appraisals to be brought here, not objections, as an overwhelming consensus was formed to go ahead with this template. Contacting the many WikiProjects was out of courtesy, and has infact, only brought one editor here who is opposed to this.

Why not now try to work alongside the rest of the editting community here? You've been blocked once, it would be unwise to persue this issue in the same way again. I think I can speak for the collective whom you address, that we actually have UK place articles best interests at heart. Perhaps this template could benefit form some of the Sheffield infobox functionality? Or have a specific city-region map? Jhamez84 03:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You're patronising me. If you have no wish to receive objections on the ground that until now you have received non then there is nothing for us to discuss. Wether there is only me who's got guts enough to face all you lot and remain here after you've used the back door of TfDing, 3RRing means I have the best intentions to not let this template out until you stop, listen then act. Since you lot have so nicely put the Sheffieldplace infobox up for deletion it is likely that as a result neither will be used. There is no hope to have a city refgion infobox since you put it up for deletion, as some of you have noticed and looked in the WP Sheffield archives, you will see that we as a whole did not condolne the mass rollout of any infobox which most of us viewed as a poison and an unnecessary item to systematically figure on place articles. It is in fact very poor to concentrate information in infobox as it requires not writting. It is also easy for contributors to insert polluting data such as postcode dialling code and other unecyclopedic information since the pollution is immediately rolled out. I don't agree with this infobox and I have only reverted its implementation in the area I am working. I am not forcing the old infobox on you guys, you should do the same: cooperation. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I see there is scope for images to be placed at the top of the infobox. Is it left to individuals whether to use one or not, or are there plans to include images as standard, or infact to leave them all out? I was only asking because adding images lengthens the box considerably. Don't know if I have made that clear - Any views? –MDCollins (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I understood that there is a function to include a static image in the infobox. Though I'd use it with caution, as what one user may see as appropriate, another may not. Jhamez84 12:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As I recall there was discussion on the archived talk page regarding removal of the flag functionality from the template. I see from the examples on the Template page that hasn't been done yet. Has there been a change of heart, or has it just not been done yet?

(DD thanks for your comments above - much appreciated.) -- Mal 13:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the Northern Ireland article iteself, and a straw poll taken, (which appears still to be open?) it seems consensus to use the Ulster Banner in the same way we use St Andrew's Cross etc. I'm inclined to go forwards with this, but how contentions is this? Jhamez84 13:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Very. - Watch out for all the cornish objecting to the English flag! –MDCollins (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a suggestion to put some region-related list links instead of the flags. If there is support for this I will implement it. It would be more useful but not look so pretty :) MRSC • Talk 15:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is ignored for most of the year, but every so often we get a fresh charge at it. I'm thinking it would save a lot of wasted time arguing (instead of contributing) if the flag option simply didn't exist. -- Mal 02:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented the change to lists. This is not an endorsement of either version as I happen to like both equally. Let's see if this generates some discussion and consensus. MRSC • Talk 07:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In order to make this even more acceptable, could a direct link to the relevant county be added too? That way, for example Falmouth, Cornwall will have links direct to the List of United Kingdom locations, List of towns in England, and List of places in Cornwall.–MDCollins (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I've implemented this for London. It will take a little bit of work to get the counties in for all places, so I held fire in order to wait and see what people felt about the idea of replacing the flags for links generally. If there are no objections I'll add the rest. MRSC • Talk 11:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

How about adding a European flag? Everywhere in the UK infobox is included in Europe and it is unlikely that anyone will object (strongly), as the EU does not have such nationalistic overtones as the English flag for example and Cornwall. I think the links to places in the countries should stay though- it is quite neat and tidy and I have used it already a few times so i'm sure others have too. Bobbacon 13:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this would face huge opposition. I'm come across more anti-European (and EU) editors than traditional counties advocates! No other country adopts the EU flag for infoboxing, so I wouldn't support its inclusion on these grounds. Jhamez84 15:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ironically I just read an article in the economist that said Britain's public is one of the least supporting of the EU project as a whole... so perhaps you are right. I do like having a flag on the infoboxes though, because I think it brings them to an obvious and neat end. I think a flag should be included- or even flags where a war of identity could start (ie. Cornwall).

Perhaps an order of the Union Jack, then the Scottish/Welsh/English/N. Irish Flags followed by a regional flag like the Cornish one? If this looks cluttered then perhaps the Union Jack could be left out. To prevent arguement over the order of the flags I would suggest the one which represents the highest political authority from left to right (UK, national, regional).

A tag such as regional_flag' could be added to the code, which would appear after the English or Scottish flag etc..

For the example of Cornwall we could use:

1. , , ,

2. , ,

3. ,

4. ,

There are other arrangements that could also be considered Bobbacon 15:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think multiple flags are a good idea, we used them at Template:Penwith navigation box and elsewhere and I don't think it looks too cluttered. Mammal4 16:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Speaking as one who doesn't really see the point in flags at all, stacking up flags "in order of importance", as it were, is just asking for an edit war. Having only one flag is bad enough, having several increases the discontent proportionally. Aesthetically, while I think that use here is much less annoying than in transclusions of {{Infobox Person}} (random example) etc., I also think that the examples given above for Cornwall are tremendously ugly. — mholland 17:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If I may add my feelings on this... Not all counties have flags though, and most don't have official flags. So, including the Cornish flag specifically for Cornwall may raise objections of elevating its status beyond other counties. I agree flags look good (really good!), but we have several issues to overcome with regards to the status of the flags in various parts of the UK; Northern Ireland's flag is an incredibly contentious issue, and England's flag is officially (as I understand) only the flag of the Church of England. I'd be surprised if we get a clear and sustained consensus. Jhamez84 17:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:FLAGCRUFT (not policy) has an eloquent argument against the overuse of flags. I know people like them, but perhaps it is better to avoid arguments. The official flag for anywhere in the UK is only the Union Flag, and if that is the case, why bother? Kbthompson 17:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Its interesting that the flags generally used by countries may not be actually recognised by the governments of the countries they represent- if this is the case then strictly speaking the Union Jack should be used in all the templates. However I am sure that even if this was raised people would always object (I would much rather have the Scottish flag).

WP:FLAGCRUFT raises some interesting points about how articles can become more 'Pokemon' trading cards. However, as these templates should represent particular countries I do not think this should be a problem.

It would appear from some random capital cities I chose Paris (with flag) and Washington DC and Rome without. I suspect the US template may have had the same problem with state flags as the UK with Cornwall for example.

As an extra note, Template:Infobox City does not have flags included. (I still like them though, just from the perspective of finishing off the look of the box...) Bobbacon 18:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Not all counties have flags though, and most don't have official flags. So, including the Cornish flag specifically for Cornwall may raise objections of elevating its status beyond other counties Surely the fact that some counties do have flags means that they have a different status to those that don't (i.e. stronger regional identity). Not all counties are the same, its not just dick-swinging - Surely this is worth including Mammal4 17:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In some isolated instances, some users are removing the city region maps. One of these users has been amoungst our most honourable friends - the "tradtional counties" advocates. Can I obtain some indication from the editting community as to which map is most useful to readers, both here for densley populated city regions, but also for the home nation maps.

Salford Population 72,750  OS grid reference SJ805985 District Salford Shire county Greater Manchester Region North West Country England Sovereign state United Kingdom Post town SALFORD Postcode district M3, M5, M6 Dialling code 0161 Police Greater Manchester Fire Greater Manchester Ambulance North West UK Parliament Salford, Salford and Eccles List of places UK England Greater Manchester

Salford Population 72,750  OS grid reference SJ805985 District Salford Shire county Greater Manchester Region North West Country England Sovereign state United Kingdom Post town SALFORD Postcode district M3, M5, M6 Dialling code 0161 Police Greater Manchester Fire Greater Manchester Ambulance North West UK Parliament Salford, Salford and Eccles List of places UK England Greater Manchester

I maintain that Greater London articles have used their own map for quite some time, as have Scotland and other areas. Could you please indicate if you support or object to inclusion of a city-region specific map if a place belongs to that area? Jhamez84 14:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Support - Where a place is within a City, it is probably most useful to see its location within the City. Coordinates (often very approximate) are displayed on the page for a wider view. Kbthompson 14:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support If we are faced with just those options, because where within a city region a place is seems more important information. However, I can see there is a need for a way of indicating both where within the country a place is, as well as a more specific, larger scale map. That, however is a separate issue that is sensibly not being assessed just now (as the straw poll would probably get too complex).  DDStretch  (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Support - The local maps are there to be used and are especially relevant in conurbations. If the sillyness continues, we can automatically generate the maps from other fields already in the templates. MRSC • Talk 15:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - excellent idea. I think this could be a sustained problem, even if we achieve an overwhelming consensus. Jhamez84 15:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I support the use of the city maps, for places where the city is applicable to do so. If these can be automated in the syntax, all very well, although it might lead to the creation of more rogue infoboxes. I think that if this is to be rolled out, it should quickly become a standard for all UK articles. –MDCollins (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)P.S. I like the co-ordinates jumble at the top of this page–MDCollins (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. In most cases I prefer the British isles map, they have more context and the British Isles are better known. The BI Iboxes are also much narrower. Perhaps the GM and London maps need shrinking and a small map of the British isles in a corner pointing out where london or GM are, for people who are not familiar with geography. That would IMO overcome most objections. G-Man * 19:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: above - Could or would this be a suitable compromise? I've added it to Greater Manchester, I don't think London needs it. Jhamez84 20:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Map with minimap: I think the new version with minimap is the best of the three. It gives context of where places are within the Urban area and where the Urban area is with in the UK.Pit-yacker 22:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Selecting Greater London brings up a map of the UK showing where London lies within the UK map; I believe it's similar for Greater Manchester. Kbthompson 23:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Clicking Greater Manchester gives it's location in its infobox; we even put GM linked under the map (!) to help with this. However, does the inclusion of a mini UK map help to combat this censorship? Or are we patronising our readers? Jhamez84 23:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer it with the minimap, although it probably needs some work. Like perhaps a square around the GM, GL area on the minimap rather than a dot. I might have a go. Also I think the conurbation map Iboxes are too wide and dominate the page, There should be some way of narrowing them. G-Man * 23:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to discuss having a mini-map after all, then I do have some comments. First of all, I think adding the mini-map is a much better solution than either of the two we were presented with (it is the third option I mentioned above). I also agree with User:G-Man that for these city maps, the area which is displayed in the large "city map" should be put on the mini-map rather than the red dot. Finally, I think the red dot is a poor choice for the marker generally, though this interacts withe the actual map and the colours of the map used in the first place. The red dot is just a 3-d red ball, with a border that I suspect someone found handy and decided to use it rather than take expert advice about suitable markers for maps. If the maps are to be changed at all, the red dot should be changed after consulting some authorative source about markers on maps.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I can narrow the maps. I based the size on the Greater London predecessor though. Changing this may lead to faults in the map calibrations too, but there is only one way to find out.... Jhamez84 00:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made a slightly ammended version HERE. It's a bit amateurish but I'm sure I could improve it. what would be better would be to have outlines of UK counties on the minimap. If i can work out how to do this I might try. G-Man * 01:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the use of the box around the county! That's real nice! If you have no objections, I'll transfer that to this image, as this version's GM appears to be just a little more accurate. Jhamez84 01:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No probs, although I've noticed that when the image is reduced to a thumb, the lines of the box become hard to see, so you might want to make the lines a bit thicker then I have. G-Man * 01:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Having the outlines of the counties on the minimap (as suggested by User:G-Man) would be very useful and it is a good suggestion, I think. It would then potentially allow maps like the GreaterManchester one to be developed for most or even all UK counties, unitary authorities, etc, with the appropriately marked minimap in one corner of them. Now, I think a set of maps like that would be a real advance.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If I understand the question from G-man, would this type of map work Image:EnglandCountiesCere.png - obviously without the numbers. There must be an image around somewhere for the entire UK with county boundaries. –MDCollins (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That map gives the ceremonial counties of England. The various unitary authorities may be a bit too small to show in any feasible or visible way on any map at the scale it would have to be drawn, so this may be acceptable. Of course, there would be the situations for Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales to be catered for, if they wish to be catered for in this way.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure adding county boundaries helps really. I think a blank (though highlighting which area we are covering exactly) image of the UK map would be the right way forwards as then it has a consistent look with the rest of the UK (are we going to add authority boundaries to the UK map? - do we use met and non-met counties/ ceremonial, what is the equivalent in other parts of the UK etc. This will cause all kinds of nightmarish problems!!).

This said, both I and G-Man have added thumbnails below. Whichever we chose to go with, can we upload asap? As they will need recalibrating and we'll need to ammend the Greater London and Tyne and Wear maps to have a simillar look.

My version uses the matching yellow land of the UK map, and the same pantone of blue for water. I've expanded the context of the GM urban areas and motorways. I think these are great improvements, based on course, from the great suggestions made below by other users. Jhamez84 01:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Without meaning to distrupt the above, I've also developed a Tyne and Wear map which I'd like to see implimented for the infobox. It includes a UK wide map.

It is based upon this map, which was the existing alternative. Jhamez84 22:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I can ammend this according to any suggestions or developments made on the GM map, which appears to be drawing more attention. Jhamez84 01:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please find thumbed to the left a map of Tyne and Wear. Members of the WikiProject North East England have endorssed this map, and are using this on the Template:Infobox North East England place (see Ryhope as an example).

It will require someone with the technical knowhow to upload this to the UK place infobox like other maps. Once completed we will need to convert the North East England infobox transclusions.... West Midlands next... Jhamez84 17:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AFAICT its already there? See North Shields Pit-yacker 18:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! --Looking good! Jhamez84 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

File:Greater Manchester outline map with UK 2.png

Please find a new, alternative Greater Manchester map, based upon the above suggestions here. It has been reduced in width also. Jhamez84 00:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The new Greater Manchester map for the infobox looks awful. It looks more like a dirty fried egg or an amoeba than a map. Pit-yacker has systematically been altering the infoboxes to the places in Greater Manchester. Any user who reverts back to the original infobox or who removes “|map_type= Greater Manchester”, then Jhamez84 reintroduces the new infobox with the awful map. I feel that the UK image is much better than the one that is being fostered at the moment. Cwb61 01:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I certainly wouldn't eat a fried egg with grey urban areas and motorways! But, several editors are converting the old infoboxes to to the new ones, not just Pit-yacker by any means. And I've merely reverted your changes to Horwich, where you were systematically removing any and all mentions of Greater Manchester - as you are a "traditional counties" advocate as indicated by your edits and userpage.

What exactly is better with the UK map? Your conjecture isn't quite clear or helpful in this instance.Jhamez84 01:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The newer Greater Manchester map with the UK in the corner looks better. The red dot puts where Greater Manchester is in relation to the UK. The newer image should be updated for Greater Manchester’s infobox places. Cwb61 02:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd support the inclusion of a mini-map in the template for city-area articles, but I would ask if the mini-map would be placed in the same position for every city? While it might be good for Greater Manchester for it to be in the bottom left corner, it might not be so good for Belfast for example. I also agree that the greyshade map of Greater Manchester lacks a certain something in the context of an infobox. -- Mal 02:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Any idea what the certain something may be? A possibility could be changing the white, to match the pale yellow of the UK map. I see no reason why the UK map would have to be in the same position on every region map; the United States adopts a fairly flexible mapping system.

My thoughts though are to achieve some kind of consistency with sub-region maps. I'm happy, as the editor of course, with the maps as they are. Jhamez84 22:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have created another more radical ammended version of the Greater Manchester map to the right. What do people think. Ideally I would like to have outlines of counties on the minimap. If I can work out how to do this I'll try it. G-Man * 23:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok - here are my comments about the two possible forms of maps. Both are good, and I appreciate the amount of work that has gone into making them up.

For User:Jhamez84's map: (a) Nice background colour that, together with the grey shading for built-up areas, extends outside the boundary, (b) the minimap's colours are just about acceptable, but (c) I think the marker on the minimap in particular needs some attention. I would recommend using, if possible, "cross hairs" to make it apparently bigger without obscuring more of the minimap, and (d) I think it needs something perhaps like the arrow on User:G-Man's map, to more clearly show that the insert shows the "bigger picture".

For User:G-Man's map: (a) The idea of the arrow is good, but looks a bit odd at the moment, (b) I don't like the mass of blue surrounding the boundary - it makes it look like an island, (c) the idea of surrounding the marker with a rectangle to, presumably, both make it more visible and to show which bit has been "expanded" is a good one, though I still think something like "cross-hairs" would be a better marker.

I think I prefer User:Jhamez84's map, but it could be made a bit better if some way of incorporating the good bits of User:G-Man's map could be found.

I hope that is useful. I really do appreciate the work both of your have done for this.  DDStretch  (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I can work with this. Perhaps producing something more akin to say, Image:EnglandManchester.png, with a further expanded section. Give me an hour or so ;). With regards to crosshairs, I know you've mentioned this before for the pointer - I don't have the technical knowhow (presuming it is possible) to change this. Are there alternative examples for other nation's maps on Wiki? Jhamez84 00:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added another version, but I'm not happy with it. I maintain the earlier version thumbed would be the right way forwards - The red of an enlarged section, semiotically, draws too much attention. I think we're also patronising our readers, as the current version has no UK context, but is easily understood. I've posted a thumb here as I may be wrong, but thinking in the long term, if several areas are to have simillar styled maps, I think that approach is unworkable. Can we go with the earlier version? Jhamez84 01:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right about it becoming too visually noticeable. Would it be possible to make the borders of the minimap a bit darker in colour or a bit thicker? As for the crosshairs bersus the red dot, I can't easily find information on wikipedia about this. But if you are using the red dot for placement, it is actually a fancy 3-d red ball with a border that was quite likely designed as a fancy HTML bullet. In the absence of crosshairs, it would be better as just a normal, flat coloured red circle rather than a fancy shaded thing. I think this can be edited by means of a suitable graphics editor to a new symbol and placed on wikipedia to be used.  DDStretch  (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

UK map borders thickened up. You may have to refresh your browser to see the changes. I've added it to the highest right thumbnail of this subsection. Jhamez84 01:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's looking good now, I think.  DDStretch  (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn’t happy at all with the original, “Image:Greater_Manchester_outline_map.png”, and was too scaving with my comments. I realise a lot of time and effort went into creating the image.

The map has improved a number of times and the introduction of the UK map in the corner. I find the latest “Image:Greater_Manchester_outline_map_with_UK_2.png” looks excellent.

It looks appealing and don’t find it patronising at all. In an instant it can be seen that the main GM image matches with the mini north-west map in relation to the mini UK map.

The only criticism I see now is with the red dots for each place which are added on, many of them are in the wrong place. I’m sure someone will be able iron out that problem. Cwb61 02:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I provisionally uploaded it as a tester. You are right, the new map will require some re-calibrating to stop the incorrect place being shown. This should be done within 24 hours! It's a little awkward to work out, but it'll be sorted. Thanks everyone for their support, input and patience. I was very keen to get this right. Jhamez84 02:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Cwb61 the 'Image:Greater Manchester outline map with UK 2.png' is the best yet. The only suggestion I would have to improve it would be to have the outlines of all uk counties and subdivisions on the minimap. G-Man * 21:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I just applied the changes to Hackney Central, in order to get some experience of doing the process, to try to automate it, using Acton as a model. There are a number of issues:

1. It's not a straight substitution, so there's quite a lot of editing to do by hand
2. The Parliamentary constituency had been lost in the midst of time, so to restore it (despite local knowledge) took some looking up.
3. The map pin drops in the middle of London Fields, so coordinates are going to come back to bite us, they are spuriously accurate.
4. The pin dropped off the map, in one preview, together with the list of London places; I assume this was someone tinkering, as they're back now.
5. Moving onto Hoxton, the N postcode page is not set up, or delinked from the template

Just thought I'd share that experience. Kbthompson 15:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm working my way round the London postcode areas using a copy of the Royal Mail Address Management Guide. SE, N, and SW are left to do. MRSC • Talk 15:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think a perl-script could automate much of the process, but not AWB. I'm not good enough at Perl. While changes are made, facts and omissions should also be corrected. Kbthompson 17:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've completed N, SW and SE. However, just as I finished another editor split the SE postcode area back out into stub articles SE1, SE2, SE3... etc. MRSC • Talk 11:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wimborne Minster uses Uses a set of little used parameters on the old infobox - UKMapX, UKMapY, LocalMapX, LocalMapY, and LocalMap. In other words it has two dynamic maps. How should we procede on articles like this? For the record, UKMapX and Y are just used as Latitude and Longitude into Template:Location map at the moment. Pit-yacker 02:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it appears that I have inadvertently updated this article in the wee small hours to the new infobox without spotting this question. I decided that only one map was really needed, the local map of hampshire was something I hadn't seen before, and deemed unnecessary. (As I have seen, the idea of this infobox is to encourage standardisation...) Sorry if this was the wrong approach, please feel to edit/revert or whatever - just let me know what you have done so that I can bear it in mind for the future. –MDCollins (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hamsey Green: currently set as in London and Surrey Pit-yacker 04:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Got it. It should be treated as a split region by using shire_district3 / shire_county3 for one of the regions (works the same for the other types of divisions but with the "3" on the end). MRSC • Talk 09:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hurst, Berkshire: Not displaying Fire or Police Pit-yacker 15:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It had District on the end of Wokingham which broke it. Regan123 15:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Redland, Bristol, Lawrence Weston, Bristol: Two images joined together in place of map. Wont place properly on conversion. Any suggestions? Pit-yacker 21:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Can one be set up as the static_image and the other as map_type? MRSC • Talk 06:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got Redland, Bristol working. MRSC • Talk 12:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Harlington, Bedfordshire: Fire and Police not working Pit-yacker 22:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Blackpool: Doesn't even use a template for its Infobox WOSlinker 23:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The map's wrong as well. It doesn't have any red on it. G-Man * 23:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • A number of the cities listed at List of cities in the United Kingdom also seem to have infobox code directly on the article rather than via a template. WOSlinker 23:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
      • --I understood that to be because where a city forms a local government district, it is meant to have different information in on the article. A comparrison would be Salford and the City of Salford. Warrington, Liverpool, Manchester and Blackpool are LA's aswell as places. Jhamez84 11:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

On a point of information, Warrington isn't a city. However, its article mixes up town information with borough (district) information, and there are separate areas of this district that are not part of the town which are significant places in their own right. I've just assessed the article for the Cheshire and England WikiProjects and recommended that the article be split to make it less unwieldy and to assist in some of the problems that this causes (and which has been noted by others on its talk page). That should solve part of that problem. It is the solution that, but for the original creater of the district article choosing an incorrect name for the article, has been successfully used to distinguish between Chester and City of Chester (should be something like Chester City (district)).  DDStretch  (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As we are past the half way mark, and to prevent further edit-warring on South Yorkshire and Scotland articles, I have nominated the previous templates for deletion. This will remove any doubts about consensus one way or the other. MRSC • Talk 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to approve of the deletion of the four old templates, but I don't feel that I can until the documentation for this one is complete. This template needs to be ready for use by everyone, and not just its developers. Heck, even one or two of you guys are still encountering rogue behaviour from this template. I'm aware there are some other, less valid, objections, but this template needs to be as wikiwiki to use as the old ones for consensus to form around it. Thanks for all the good work. — mholland 17:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There are examples now for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and all the various English arrangements. What else needs to be added? MRSC • Talk 17:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to precisely how the automation works: which fields are automated, and which other fields do the automated ones depend upon? I can see what input the automation expects because I've browsed the lookup tables, but not everyone will know to do that - maybe a note on that? There's also no demonstration of a couple of fields, like static_image - and I've yet to see that used in the wild. — mholland 17:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is very relevant, I've added these details. Not sure about static_image, it was originally for static maps but we have merged that in now so you can add a static map as the value for map_type. It could (possibly?) be removed. I'm not sure if anyone needs it. MRSC • Talk 18:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

More needed? The documentation is now better. It may just be me, but the section titled "Full syntax" does not seem to me to contain the full syntax. for example, for various strange situations, three fields are required (e.g., Mow Cop, as discussed in detail on this page). If I am correct, I can appreciate that the full syntax would be obscure if these things needed for special cases were included, and so i wonder if a change might be needed so that the section reads "Normally Used Full Syntax", togetyher with a note stating that for various unusual cases, it may be necessary to use some more esoteric fields, not explicitly mentioned. A contact user could then be given who might be willing to assist in "difficult cases". Just a thought...  DDStretch  (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a note in the England documentation about that, its pretty obscure and unlikely to crop up very often. As for anything further, I encourage others to add anything they think would help. MRSC • Talk 19:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Documentation looks good now. Thanks. — mholland 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone add Historic county to the england template? Because when I add it, it seems to cause problems. The field should be called Historic county and |historic_county=. It should also be optional. - Nick C 18:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

See Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place/Archive_1#Straw_polls. MRSC • Talk 18:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried adding the postcode details on the Macclesfield article, exactly as I have done on every other article, but they dont seem to be working. G-Man * 21:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You just need a lower case p :-) Regan123 21:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Should the articles with Template:Infobox North East England place on them be included in the todo list? WOSlinker 23:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably, the editors at the WikiProject dont seem to have a problem with the new box. However, the impression I got was that as a WikiProject they would only implement certain fields where the UK box replaced their box (Their box was invented specifically because the England box was too big). So I guess that we would need to let them decide which fields to implement?

In comparison to a certain other editor (who will remain nameless) from a certain other Wikiproject (which will remain nameless :) ) the issue hasnt been brought agressively to a head (suffice to see the nameless WikiProject's nameless infobox probably wouldnt otherwise have been put on TfD - which probably makes that one a higher priority), and I dont IMHO feel it is a priority to convert.Pit-yacker 23:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to remain nameless it was me. Unlike with myself you seem engaged with that WP but not with ours. Then as you've pointed out above, it was childish play on you lot to nominate it for TfD. I ditch your template you TfD mine... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 00:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone managed to adapt the settings for updating London articles? MRSC • Talk 07:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Or Wales? My settings won't recognise the Welsh versions to convert. Jhamez84 11:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I only implemented England to start with. A version that includes Wales (and seems to work after a very quick test) is available at User:Pit-yacker/Sandbox3. I'm not sure that I have understood the Welsh governmental structure so its probably a good idea for someone to check it. Am I right in interpreting that the current Welsh box doesnt actually support Welsh name or Welsh assembly? I havent implemented the undocumented localmap (again), UK map (again), and mapplace either, I'm not actually sure these are used at all? Pit-yacker 15:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at Administrative divisions of Wales and Subdivisions of Scotland. That should inform you. G-Man * 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Have added London now. It appears to work. Only major issue is that I havent worked out is an easy way to strip out the London borough value yet so this will have to be done manually. It also currently removes the GLA parameter which I assume is redundant? I will leave Scotland for now as AFAICT the syntax is still being finalised?Pit-yacker 15:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If you update the London articles by district (all the borough locations are categorised) you can paste e.g. "|london_borough=Newham" over the text each time. MRSC • Talk 09:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that script, it's a little beyond me! I had a go with that script on some London locations, at the moment, I had to fix the postcode manually. Maybe my mistake, but I thought I'd draw it to your attention. Kbthompson 10:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The script is only trained to look for postcodes of a certain pattern specifically one or tow letters followed by numbers, followed by anything. Unfotunately, it seems most of London's postcodes dont comply with that rule. Furthermore, there doesnt seem to be a standard pattern I can look for and catch easily. Pit-yacker 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the settings at User:Pit-yacker/Sandbox3. The new version catches London infoboxes that are entitled "Infobox..." or "infobox..." as opposed to just "infobox...". The previous version would skip some articles as it expected the i to be always lowercase. Pit-yacker 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added optional tags for Scotland, the distance from capital cities (London and Edinburgh) as per the existing Scotland place infobox.

I have also added an optional local name tag as per the Scotland place infobox. I cannot get it to show up however. Could someone look at this? My practice template (for Aberdeen) can be found at User:Bobbacon/Transport in Aberdeen (the name is for an old test page). Bobbacon 12:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Its ok, you missed a "}}". I will try adding it back in. MRSC • Talk 12:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks, I couldn't work it out. Bobbacon 12:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be better if the field naming scheme was retained throughout. If we have all the fields in lower case and joined by underscores, it is easier to remember or anticipate the naming. MRSC • Talk 12:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I added distances from capital cities for Scotland, EdinburghDist and LondonDist do you think that the convention edinburgh_distance or edinburgh_dist should be used? Bobbacon 13:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is great. Thanks. MRSC • Talk 08:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As I know the Scotland Infobox well I am going to try and merge it into the UK infobox. I think before this is done the Scotland place template cannot be deleted. I have changed some things already but have been asked to discuss future changes here.

I have already made the following changes:

• added Scottish distances
• added local names tag

I propose the following changes which will make the UK infobox fully compatable with the the scottish one:

• regional vehicle codes- indeed not just for Scotland, this is a feature in many other countries infoboxes too.
• population densities- again as above for the UK as a whole, as they are used in many other infoboxes
• former county- this is in the Scotland infobox already, I do however not think it is personally necessary, but I will leave it up to discussion.

As well as those three merges, I have noticed that in other infoboxes there is a tendency to include:

• 'area' other place infoboxes include the area of the city/town
• 'elevation' height in the US infoboxes (I cannot find elevation height data for the UK on the net so am not sure how useful it would really be)

added regional vehicle codes for Scotland, through the unitary_scotland tag. double checked templates and appears bug free. Bobbacon 09:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

added population densities as an optional tag. Bobbacon 10:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

have changed the Scottish example in the template to Aberdeen as it shows off the syntax better than Lewis for Scotland. Bobbacon 10:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Scotland merge complete except for the two contentious issues of historical_county and the small flag removal.

I'm not familliar enough with the status of these counties in Scotland, but if it is anything like England, a straw poll was taken not to include them. User:MRSC has a broad amount of source material that could help here. Jhamez84 11:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The flag has been removed for a while without any dissent. It can easily be reinserted later if need be. MRSC • Talk 12:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I (personally) am not involved in any of the historical counties discussions and so feel like a neutral party in this case. The historical counties field has been established in the Scottish infobox (the example I know) since I joined wikipedia and so I think on that basis it should be included- as an optional field. I do however believe that infoboxes should contain only the most up-to date information that is relevent for current status only- unfortunately not the case in this field. However, without adding an optional field I think the argument will continue to fester for a long time- particularly among my fellow Scottish wikipedians.

I am biased for the flag arguement as I would like to see one (as an option only). In the Scottish infobox there has been one for a long standing period of time and nobody has ever complained about it- therefore I think it should be included. I can see the problem that if the Scots get one, then everyone else will want one too. Bobbacon 12:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We could put it (flags) to a straw poll? I should imagine we don't get a consensus and it could turn very ugly however. I think the current format of places lists works well. Jhamez84 12:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm suprised that many Scottish editors are supportive of the former counties as this has been presented in the past as something that was "forced" on Scotland by England. MRSC • Talk 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes we should probably have a straw poll on the flags. I suspect that as the template is not on very many Scotland or Wales articles, editors in that area may not have been alerted to the change to lists. In the spirit of trying to be as inclusive as possible (and not accused otherwise), we should alert any editors who are likely to be interested. MRSC • Talk 12:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll sounds good for flags. I suppose we create some options and then get people to vote on them. My suggestions are:

• 1. No flags whatsoever.
• 2. Flags by country, set automatically by the syntax (specifically: Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland).
• 3. Blank and optional tag- will cause argument.
• 4. Union Jack (from the existing flags argument above- i have been led to believe this flag legally represents the whole of the UK, whereas the English flag for example is a Church of England flag as opposed to an English flag)- again I think this would cause too much arguement.
• 5. Flags for countries that can agree on one (ie. Scotland), no flag for those that can't.

I think we need to inform each individual country. Once options are decided I think we need to inform each separate countries Infobox Template and WikiProject page, put a quick link on the existing flags argument above and a quick link on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 18/Template:Infobox England place as this is where a lot of the argument has been of the last few days. Bobbacon 13:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is done, can I suggest that the term "Union flag" be used instead of "Union Jack". Of course, I know what is meant, you know what is meant, and probably most others will know, and it has largely become an accepted term for the flag, but some people will object to it (see here), causing further unnecessary wrangles..  DDStretch  (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. Union Flag is the correct terminology. I suggest we start a sub page for this AND post to every and all Wikipages going so there are no accusations of back room decisions!!! I'd also like to see an option for both the Union flag and constituent country flag to be shown, as this is how I intend to vote! I also think that one country having one rule and another having a different should be out of the question. Jhamez84 13:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so can we count this as consensus:

• 1. No flags whatsoever (keep lists of places)
• 2. Constituent Country flag only, set automatically by the syntax (specifically: Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland).
• 3. Blank and optional tag
• 4. Union Flag only
• 5. Union Flag and the constituent country flag (i.e.: Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland).

? I'm afraid I have to go out into the real world right now as I have a family to feed, but I will be back tomorrow to vote... Bobbacon 13:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I ammended slightly with this sig (terminology only). They look good. Anybody else have suggestions? What is the best plan to contact everyone? WikiProjects are probably good places, as well as the UK and 4 home nation article talk pages. Each "former" infobox talk page too. Any others? Jhamez84 14:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Shall we wait until after the TFD to ensure it remains focussed on this one point? MRSC • Talk 17:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, its a minor issue so it is probably best not to add another in the mix. Once the TFD is over we should vote on it then. If it becomes a factor for any reason then it can be brought forward. Bobbacon 09:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm struggling getting the right locations to be marked on this map. Locations have been pulled, generally westsouthwesterly. Examples:

• Hale, Greater Manchester is slightly too far south.
• Shaw and Crompton, Milnrow and Chadderton are slightly too far west.

There may be other examples.

I'm not a strong mathematician, but I'm sure this is solvable by altering my settings found at Template:Location map Greater Manchester. Jhamez84 14:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've since fixed this! And it looks good, even if I say so myself! Jhamez84 11:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why there isn't an option to have Borough instead of District where the borough is in a shire county? OR have I missed how to do this? Ksbrown^talk 21:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The honorific titles (City, Royal Borough and Borough) are not supported. On the previous template you could add a "district type" field which populated this. However, its use was very inconsistently applied. We could possibly automate this. MRSC • Talk 08:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Ksbrown^talk 10:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have had a request on my talk page from SuzanneKn about the problems when she has attempted to add the infobox to new articles. She has asked if it is possible to stop the new-line occuring after constituent country in Ottershaw (contrasted with Onslow Village). As far as I can tell the problem is with the length of the constituency name. Is their a way of resolving this. FWIW, its an issue I have come across with varying degrees of severity and ability to resolve. Pit-yacker 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is because some of the captions are two words. I wonder if there is a way to force it not to wrap the text (by somehow treating the two words as one for example). MRSC • Talk 08:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Could our old friend the Non-breaking space (Ctrl+Alt+Space) help? Pit-yacker 15:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This has worked. :) MRSC • Talk 17:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with Byfleet? The infobox won't automate! Jhamez84 22:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a missing ] on a wikilink.Pit-yacker 23:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Jhamez84 12:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to include a reference link to the populations (found at the Neighbourhood Statistics page), as I think is understood from the suggested guidelines. Unfortunately linking to "2001 Census" with a footnote tends to wrap the information which looks a bit daft. This seems to be inconsistent, can anyone find it? For example Keynsham is fine, but Falmouth, Cornwall does not. 10:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Settlements are meant to include population numbers in their lead sections - I there suggest Wikilinking "2001 Census" in the infoboxes, but putting the "live reference" (<ref></ref>) against the population figure given in the lead.

This should not only stop the content wrapping, but also satisfy Wiki's style guides. Jhamez84 12:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to put a Scottish map under the map_type tag. There is already an image Image:Scotland (Location) Template (HR).png that is suitable for purpose. How can I set the coordinates to show? Bobbacon 10:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's incredibly difficult; I set the Greater Manchester map using trial and error (though another user set basic co-ordinates and formatting up before me). Unless any other user know how to do it otherwise? Jhamez84 11:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I managed to work it out and I think it works. I have only tested it on Aberdeen where it appears to works fine. It may need a small tweek 1 degree in any direction but its as bang on target as I think I can get it. Bobbacon 13:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You've done some good work on that Aberdeen infobox. I think it lookas very good. Now, I want the distances and population densities for all UK places!  DDStretch  (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I messaged him too for that! Looks great! Jhamez84 18:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Population density should work for all the infoboxes. I will include a distances tag for Cardiff and Belfast. I am not 100% sure but I think it should be possible to create some kind of Syntax to automatically calculate and include distances to the appropriate captial cities through the longitude and latitude fields. I have no idea how it would be done, or who could help though.

I have left vehicle codes for Scotland only, as I do not know the other regions well enough to implement them. Scotland has 5 regional centres and it was quite easy to see the most obvious centres for registration. The page used to get the original codes was British car number plate identifiers. Bobbacon 09:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The following is lifted from my talk page. MRSC • Talk 17:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

About TFD's structure If the outcome for this discussion is keep or no consensus, then all templates will continue as they were If the outcome for this discussion is delete, then first all instances of the deleted templates will be replaced, and then they will be deleted. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether or not the templates are worth keeping in the long run—and then implementing the solution. While the consensus should be enforced as soon as possible, there is no rush.

So, why are you deleting all templates from South Yorkshire articles without this consensus? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 16:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A call to comment on the new template was put on Template talk:Infobox England place. The discussions at Template talk:Infobox UK place from a range of editors achieved consensus that it should replace all England infoboxes. Can you give a single substantive reason why 10 articles in South Yorkshire should continue to use it when thousands now use Template talk:Infobox UK place without any problems? MRSC • Talk 16:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't use the thousands of articles don't use it argument as it is you and your comrades who've put it in. In this argument you can only use numbers pre your implementation fest: i.e. none. You're manipulating statistics. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(Additional comment not moved from User:MRSC's talk page): There are also issues of ownership here (see WP:OWN). In short, no one project "owns" the articles it says fall within its remit.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)