Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox settlement/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Population figures

Population total should give us the total population of the settlement and administratively affiliated rural areas. (or at least I imagine so.) In other words, population total should be greater than (or equal to) the population of the city. But in this template population total turns out to be the population of the city. Whenever I enter the population of the province as population total, the outcome is the population of the city. Well the population of the city is already there with the caption Population urban. (It may be a misunderstanding of mine.) Any suggestions ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you want population_metro, for the greater metropolitan area? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a very detailed template and I wouldn't say I want some entry in particular. I only want to point out that population_total is somewhat deceptive. I tried to give the total population of a province in an edit page. But in text it appeared as population_city. I think population city is equivalent to population urban and population total should refer to the total population of a greater area (either metropolitan area or a province). Have a nice day. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the article for Budapest, if I recall correctly, has (or had) the Metro population being larger than the city + total. I may have enquired to that on its page. If it wasn't Budapest it was another large Hungarian city (not generally worth enquiring on a small Hungarian settlement so I seem to think it was Budapest, but this would have been a few months ago and could well have been fixed by now.) It shows anyway there is confusion on what these are supposed to represent. It is probably not obvious to UK users that "metro" means the inner city and "city" means the greater area, or perhaps it is the other way around; certainly these terms seem to have different meanings in different places (Tesco Metro, for example, was the ones in the city centres) and although we are stuck with the names of the fields we should describe what they mean. City, for example, shows widely varying meanings in various parts of the world. Si Trew (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct coords, wrong pushpin location

Some good folks at Talk:Long_Branch,_Panola_County,_Texas#Coordinates may need some help with this template. They'd used the {{geodata-check}} tag, even though they agreed that the coords were correct. I removed that tag and told them I'd let this page know about it. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's probably the Location Map that is incorrect. I'll take a look if it has not been done by now. It won't be this template itself, but the Location Map has to be specified in an orthorectangular projection with the four corners, and if that is out, then the whole map will be out. Is odd though if the Location Map is well accepted.Just my conjecture, I will see if I can help. Si Trew (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

when subdivision_name is blank

When subdivision_name= is left blank, no _region: parameter should be generated for the {{Coord}} template, right? I'd appreciate it if somebody with administrator privileges would fix this bug by replacing the single instance of _region:{{CountryAbbr|{{{subdivision_name|}}}|{{{subdivision_name1|}}}}} with something like {{#if:{{{subdivision_name|}}}|_region:{{CountryAbbr|{{{subdivision_name}}}|{{{subdivision_name1|}}}}}}}. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Let me know if there is a problem. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Your edit was an improvement, though not quite what I requested. I don't see it creating any new problems. However, it looks to me like {{Infobox settlement}} will still transclude {{CountryAbbr}} with a blank first argument in instances where subdivision_name= is blank and subdivision_name1= is not blank. I want to stop transcluding whenever subdivision_name= is blank -- regardless of what subdivision_name1= is. --Stepheng3 (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. I will fix it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response.--Stepheng3 (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

flag icons and templates in subdivision_name (and subdivision_name1 through subdivision_name6)

I've run into a large number of infoboxes that use flag icons or templates in these fields. The documentation says that flag icons and templates should not be used. Is there actually consensus on this? If so, then let's request a bot run to clean up this issue. Such a bot could:

  • replace transclusions of the form {{flag|Foo}} with Foo (expanding abbreviations)
  • replace ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 code templates of the form {{BAR}} with corresponding name (Barbados, in this case)
  • delete transclusions of the form {{flagicon|Foo}}
  • delete images of the form [[Image:Foo|bar]]

Any caveats or objections? --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some disagreement on the use of flags. (see WP:MOSFLAG). Is this a problem with the automatic region generation passed to the coord template? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Some of these currently cause automatic region generation (via {{CountryAbbr}}) to fail. Nearly all of them cause {{CountryAbbr}} to transclude hundreds of other templates. Massive transclusion slows down uncached page loading and pollutes the list of transcluded templates under the editbox, making the list almost useless. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything in WP:MOSFLAG (on on the talk page) that supports the use of flags in this context. Perhaps there was controversy that's now archived. Or are you suggesting that I move the discussion there? --Stepheng3 (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I have seen at least one editor going around removing the flag icons, and a few editors going around and adding them. I could probably dig up the thread, but basically there is no firm agreement about the use of flag icons. I really don't have a preference, but I am hesitant to start any kind of automated process for removing or adding them. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Since my concern is with coding, not aesthetics or nationalism, I'd like to sidestep the debate over whether flags should appear or not. In this regard, I like how {{Geobox}} provides automated country and state flags that don't have to be coded in the country= field. Is there any hope that {{Infobox settlement}} could move in that direction? --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I am indifferent about this particular type of flag icon usage (although I strongly prefer that the standard flag templates are used instead of MediaWiki image syntax), but I do believe that the problems with {{CountryAbbr}} et. al. would be better solved by having a bot add coordinates_type = type:city_region:XX-YY (for example) to the list of infobox parameters, and we delete those Abbr templates altogether. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from. But wouldn't that force future infobox users to learn {{Coord}} parameter syntax? I thought infoboxes were supposed to make things easier for editors.
I regard {{CountryAbbr}} as a good idea that got perverted into something monstrous by trying to handle every possible input format. If it only had to handle country and region names, it would be a nice way to make the ISO codes more editor-friendly. Getting rid of all the {{CountryAbbr2}} cases (the icons and templates) seems like a step in the right direction. --21:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, yeah, I think there are more user-friendly methods than the existing coordinates_type parameter. Something like the iso_code and iso_subcode parameters of {{geobox}} would be easier to use, but would remove the massive lookup function of the Abbr templates. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
So if the bot run you (Andrwsc) are proposing finished tomorrow, would you then rip {{CountryAbbr}} out? Due to the complexity of the coord parameter syntax, I think most new infoboxes would still leave coordinates_type= blank. Do you envision periodic or ongoing bot runs to fill in the coordinates_type= fields of new infoboxes? --Stepheng3 (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, either way, the Abbr templates have to go. I know they were created in good-faith, but it doesn't seem like a good design aproach, in my opinion, to parse one parameter to figure out what to use for a second parameter, versus just specifying that second parameter directly. There are too many ways for that to fail, since any arbitrary wiki markup can be used with the subdivision parameters. Any unforeseen piped links or reference markup will be as problematic as flag icon usage. I'm not necessarily suggesting that we use the existing coordinates_type without change (although a bot could do that immediately, if one was available) but I am suggesting that we ask users (or a permanently running bot to fix problems) to specify a mandatory parameter for the region if coordinate parameters are also specified for the infobox. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that's a good plan. Will you draft the bot request, or shall I? --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I have a lot of real-life work in the next couple of days, and I'm on a business trip in SE Asia next week (likely to have spotty Internet access, and probably unable to respond to follow-up questions) so if you could do that, it would be great! Feel free to propose any user-friendly parameter syntax for the region code(s). Best to have something that uses the ISO codes, I think, so we don't have a thousand-way switch statement. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll move ahead as best I can in your absence. --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I've posted a proposal involving the existing coordinates_type= parameter at WP:BOTREQ. --Stepheng3 (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the latest in regards to the flag usage or not? Can we figure out whether it should or should not be used and have a bot do that as well? Personally I am wondering what reasons exist that it should not be used? --ben_b (talk) 06:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
One factor to consider is that the inclusion of flags may corrupt emitted metadata. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Andy, what metadata are you referring to? --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
For example, the country-name and label fields in the hCard microformat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
If the issue is only re: metadata, then the solution would probably be to create a new true/false field for subdivision_flag, and remove the template from the subdivision_name field. Or are there additional reasons for not using the flag icons? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Its not only' that. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Conversion errors?

It seems that the conversion to feet when elevation_m is specified may not be correct. See the Gulzar Khanwala article, in which the convert template is used in the text to convert 145 metres to 480 ft, yet the conversion in the settlement infobox converts to 476 ft, a difference of 4 ft. Can someone please take a look at this and see where the discrepancy lies. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a question of the number of digits of precision. If you check the source, http://www.fallingrain.com/world/PK/04/Gulzar_Khanwala.html, it actually states that it's 479 ft, so both are off by a bit. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The funny thing about this is that 479.0000 feet (145.9992 m) should probably be rounded to 146 m. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I took this to Template Talk:Convert about six months ago if I remember right, which I probably do not. The {{convert}} template is not wrong, but it is one of many ways that this template has kinda got a bit of bit rot in my opinion and doesn't quite do the right thing, or at least, the obvious thing. Plastik, btw, I left you a thank-you at {[Hungarian Infobox settlement]]. Si Trew (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see it as a problem with convert or with this template. They are both giving reasonable output, just rounded to different precision. If anything, the conversion on the FallingRain website is suspect. They must be chopping the decimal, rather than rounding. Thanks for the thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I only just spotted it, when I said "this template" I actually meant the convert template to which I had just referred, and perhaps you took it as meaning this Infobox settlement template. QED how these ambiguities arise. Neither is wrong of course, if for no other reason than by definition, they do what they are told to do. Whether that is what we think they should do, is why we are here talking about it – all of which is good. Si Trew (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Language names in infoboxes

An editor has raised an issue over at the Canadian notice board over the use and place of French names within the infoboxes (e.g. Montreal or Greater Sudbury), though the comment extends to all non-English languages. In relation to the infobox, it specifically concerns the name, native_name, official_name and other_name fields. It would be appreciated to get some extra opinions on the matter. See #French in Infoboxes for details. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 02:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"Legacy" templates integrating into this one

I'm working on a "wrapper" template to convert {{Infobox Place Ireland}} to "redirect" to this one. In this way, Irish place articles would no use this template but without having to either bot or manually change over to this template (the change over would be done at the level of {{Infobox Place Ireland}}).

I think this is a good model for migrating country specific info boxes to this template because (a) it would be make for a seamless and transparent transition; (b) it would still still allow for country-specific fields to be used (by users) and country specific documentation on use while feeding into a common template for consistency in presentation (and avoid needlessly eccentric country-specific fields).

However, I'm hit a problem. The issue is that {{Infobox Place Ireland}} puts area and elevation fields a human-meaningful strings not numbers (e.g. "area=1,588 km²" not "area_total_km2=1558"). Passing this string into the fields in this template cause an exception because the template attempts to convert them to m2.

What I would like is for another option to be added to the area and elevation options. As well as area_total_km2 and area_total_sq_mi, can we have area_total_info? area_total_info would simply be displayed without conversion in any way. Similarly, could we have elevation_info as well as elevation_m and elevation_ft? -- RA (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A better idea would be to add area_total_km2 to {{Infobox Place Ireland}}, then make a WP:BOTREQ to have all the 'area' fields converted to 'area_total_km2', stripping out the commas and units. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the code to the Irish template.
Your suggestion sounds good in theory. In practice, a manual change looks like the only sure way to "fix" current articles. This is because the current field takes free-form text and so editors have entered all sorts of descriptions into it. Some examples:
If there is reticence about adding a "blank field", an alternative approach would be for this template to implement error catching using the #iferror: parser function. There are several ways, we could go on this, examples:
  • If an error is detected, output the input argument "as is" (e.g. user enters "80 m / 262 ft", exception is caught, template outputs "80 m / 262 ft")
  • If an error is detected, output a gracious error (e.g. user enters "80 m / 262 ft", exception is caught, template outputs "Invalid area - please enter area as a number in km2 only. See documentation for details."
  • If an error is detected, ignore the field completely and add the page to a category of pages with errors in it's template (e.g. user enters "80 m / 262 ft", exception is caught, template outputs skips the area field altogether and adds the page to Category:Pages with incorrectly defined settlement templates)
In this instance, I'd prefer the first of these suggestions as it would allow the template to be backward compatible with the various country-specific templates already in use. None of the suggestions are mutually exclusive however and neither do they rule out bot involvement. -- RA (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure, we could start by having a bot change the unambiguous cases, then clean up the rest by hand. There are fewer than 5000 transclusions, so it wouldn't take too long. I will see if I can get something started, and we can add a tracking category to list the ones needed attention. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
OK. That sounds fine. Will you handle the request or will I? -- RA (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I should be able to get something started in about 24 hours. If not, feel free to make a BotREQ. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Done. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice work, Plastikspork! I saw you ripping through the towns and villages of Ireland with AWB. Thanks greatly for that! --RA (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Have I got this right? If the idea is to base specific templates on this generic one, I heartily am in favour of that (and I hope {{Infobox Hungarian settlement}} might server as an example, although {{Magyar télepules infobox}}, its Hungarian companion with field names same as on HU:WP, was transferred with a similar process, though many French templates exist for similar purposes.) If as I first read, the idea was to divorce the specific templates from this generic one, I would be against that. q.v. for example {{Infobox military person}} which is based on {{Infobox person}} and both restricts and extends it appropriately. The aim is that Infobox settlement contains All World Knowledge, but in a particular region, only some of it is ever useful, and stock things like what you call administrative regions (county, state, and so on) can be plugged in by the template rather than laboroiusly supplied. I am all for that, and have in the past (a view I stick to) dismissed the idea it can all be done by writing directly against this template (or others). If that were the case, we could forget transclusion all together and just write all our conversions and so on in pure Wikipedia markup, to the unspeakable advancement of human knowledge. Si Trew (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I personally like two different methods: (1) create a frontend to this template, which performs the parameter translation, and fills in some of the standard fields. For examples of this, see what transcludes {{Uses Infobox settlement}}. One could use the foreign language field names, but I would suggest using English equivalents instead. The field label translation can be accomplished through substitution, see User:Plastikspork/blank for example, which I have been using to speed up the process of adding this template to United States settlements. If you look at the code, it's very messy, but it substitutes beautifully. (2) Just create a field translation template to go directly to this template, like the example that I just provided. If you want help with speeding up field translation, or copying stuff between Wikipedias, let me know. I have written dozens of templates and scripts to automate such tasks. Hopefully, I understood your question. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Bot request filed to provide new coordinates_region parameter

formerly Bot request filed to hard-code coordinates_type to reduce excessive CountryAbbr calls

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot 6.2 and comment. Thank you, –xenotalk 18:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've commented there, but I think we need both your bot and a new coordinates_region parameter added to this infobox. That would require replacing this code fragment:
{{#if:{{{subdivision_name|}}}|_region:{{CountryAbbr|{{{subdivision_name|}}}|{{{subdivision_name1|}}}}}}}
with this:
{{#if:{{{coordinates_region|}}}|_region:{{{coordinates_region}}}}}
— Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Seems eminently sensible. The code should actually just be changed to
{{#if:{{{subdivision_name|}}}|_region:{{{coordinates_region|{{CountryAbbr|{{{subdivision_name|}}}|{{{subdivision_name1|}}}}}}}}}}
for backwards compatibility concerns. –xenotalk 00:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm okay with adding a new parameter, but shouldn't the code be something like
{{#if:{{{coordinates_region|}}}|_region:{{{coordinates_region}}}|{{#if:{{{subdivision_name|}}}|{{CountryAbbr|{{{subdivision_name|}}}|{{{subdivision_name1|}}}}}}}}}
? Also, I wonder what the name for the new parameter should be. iso_region= (as in {{Infobox building}})? iso_code=/iso_subcode= (as in {{Geobox}})? Or region= (as in {{Infobox mountain}})? --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Hm...You're right...but moreso:
{{#if:{{{coordinates_region|}}}{{{subdivision_name|}}}|_region:{{{coordinates_region|{{CountryAbbr|{{{subdivision_name}}}|{{{subdivision_name_1|}}}}}}}
Don't really have anything useful to say about what exactly the param should be called =) –xenotalk 01:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Let it be iso_region, then. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The ISO code refers to the coordinates of the location of the article's subject, not necessarily to the article's subject itself. The iso_code and iso_subcode parameters of {{Geobox}} were for infoboxes of subnational divisions (states, provinces, etc.) which is a different purpose than what we're talking about here (usually infoboxes for cities and towns). So I'd prefer coordinates_region or even coordinates_iso_region if we're !voting. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I could live with coordinates_region. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
And would it be a good idea to use two parameters for the country and province/state instead of one? –xenotalk 22:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The main advantage I see to splitting the region code is that editors wouldn't need to learn which separator to put between the two parts. Two parameters would be more cumbersome: two parameter names to get right instead of one. And because the major divisions of countries can have so many different designations (state, province, region, district, territory, etc.) it would be tricky to come up with a clear name for that parameter. For these reasons, I think a single parameter would be better. --Stepheng3 (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right - a single parameter is fine. CA-ON can be easily split up into CA and ON by using {{Trunc|CA-ON|2}} / {{Str rightc|CA-ON|2}}. –xenotalk 20:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Resolution

So, are we in agreement to add {{{coordinates_region}}}, using the proposed code? 

{{#if:{{{coordinates_region|}}}{{{subdivision_name|}}}|_region:{{{coordinates_region|{{CountryAbbr|{{{subdivision_name}}}|{{{subdivision_name_1|}}}}}}}

If there are no objections, I (or someone else) can add it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Do it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
If someone can make up a sandbox diff, that would be great. Otherwise, I can do it, but that will require some more thinking to make sure I don't screw something up. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I've got it in the sandbox and am currently testing it. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I had to tweak it slightly to get the desired results:
{{#if:{{{coordinates_region|}}}{{{subdivision_name|}}}|_region:{{{coordinates_region|{{CountryAbbr|{{{subdivision_name|}}}|{{{subdivision_name1|}}}}}}}}}}
The sandbox version now works to my satisfaction. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Now done! Please let me know (or revert) if there is a problem. Also, could you update the documentation if necessary? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I've updated the documentation. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Need Template:CountryAbbrFast

24-March-10: I have been trying to simplify {{CountryAbbr2}}, for the gargantuan mass of wikilinked nation-flag templates (with their 560 subtemplates & sub-subtemplates). That whole CountryAbbr contraption has become an everything-plus-the-kitchen-sink template, and consequently, there really are somewhere between 40-73 million wikilinks being generated from Template:CountryAbbr2 into {CountryAbbr} and {Infobox_Settlement}. I think we should just create a variation named {CountryAbbrFast}, which, as the name implies, is fast and would hence remain fast in future updates. No more worrying about flag-image matching, or flag-image-data matching, or who knows, perhaps some day, Olympic-host-language names to match for country/region abbreviations. By declaring {CountryAbbrFast} to be fast, we can avoid the runaway "creeping featurism" which has resulted in the "featured creepyism" of {CountryAbbr}, which has, in fact, now spawned at least 50 million wikilinks (to flag-templates) and cluttered the edit-preview of over 75,000 article pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I've found a simmiliar template in the german wiki project, but I can't link to it. Could anyone else please do it? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlage:Infobox_OrtFlag of the United Arab Emirates.svg

--MartinThoma (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Many templates have the interwikis on a document subpage [1]. –xenotalk 13:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
If you create a template without a doc page, creating it will kinda tell you to put the interwiki links in the doc subpage. I admit when I first started doing Interwikis, for translation, this did somewhat confuse me why, so I say why here:
  • The template includes the doc page inside a <noinclude> tag. This means that the documentation is not transcluded on any page that transcludes the template. In particular, it means you don't get your documentation spewing on to any page that uses the template.
  • The documentation includes the Interwiki links and categories inside a <includeonly> tag. This means that it does not appear on the documentation page, but only on pages that include it. In particular, this means the documentation page itself is not interwiki'd to its companion template on another wiki.
  • Because the template includes the documentation in its <noinclude> tag, it gets those categories and interwikis, but other articles transcluding it do not get categorised and interwiki'd as such.

All makes sense, but it is nonobvious when you first do it. I have deliberately interwiki'd templates and categories, when they do link to other Wikipedias' templates or wikipedias, and a similar care must then be taken not to propagate it, i.e. put it in <includeonly> tag in the template or category.

There is, probably, an WP: namespace article that puts this more succinctly, but as usual, some things are hard to find and one struggles to find it oneself. One feels sometimes that Wikipedia takes Fowler's attitude of putting important information under bizarre headings, or as we software engineers say, make it write-only. Si Trew (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

hCard microformat "category" attribute

{{editprotected}}

Please change:

<td colspan="2" style="text-align:center; background-color:#cddeff">—  '''{{{settlement_type|{{{type}}}}}}'''  —</td> </tr>

to

<td colspan="2" style="text-align:center; background-color:#cddeff">—  '''<span class="category">{{{settlement_type|{{{type}}}}}}</span>'''  —</td> </tr>

To add a "category" attribute (nothing to do with Wikipedia's categories) to the hCard microformat emitted by this template. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Done! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 02:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

25-March-10: Until {CountryAbbr2} gets simplified, just use each nation's official country name, as subdivision_name = nation, in the infobox, instead of any flag or {XXX} type template-links:

  • Use: Mexico      not {{MEX}}       not {{flag|Mexico}}

By using the simple nation name (subdivision_name = Italy), then any article can be streamlined to avoid {CountryAbbr2} and those 300-560 flag templates being linked. As long as the subdivision is a simple nation's name, then {CountryAbbr} can find the 2-letter code, lightning fast, and avoid invoking {CountyAbbr2} to lookup the complex flag-image templates. -Wikid77 20:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I already commented to you there is a bot request in place that will help simplify all of this -- User:Xenobot/6.2. You don't need to be doing all this work because a bot will do it once approved. –xenotalk 20:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, why not let the template use the proposed coordinates_region= parameter to generate the subdivision name? --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Yea - working backwards. That was something I figured would come after Xenobot's work is finished. –xenotalk 20:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm focusing, now, on the cities that are edited everyday, then if needed, later we can put the flags back into the subdivision_name (unless the bot-edit will cause that to occur). Think of the top 300 cities that are edited all the time, and then later check those for proper flag placement, when checking that those major city infoboxes are also well-formatted. This isn't really extra work: major city articles need to be monitored, periodically, to ensure the infobox format hasn't been hacked. I have confirmed that some flag-templates are still linked to over 16,000 article pages, so long term, most of those links will go away. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    No, the bot won't re-add the flags, so you'll need to go back over them afterwards. Your call. –xenotalk 21:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    Another good place to check would be in templates which call this template, although those may have already been fixed. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

commas in population_total=

When population_total is displayed, it is formatted using formatnum:, which supplies any necessary commas (to separate the thousands, for example). However, if the population_total= parameter itself contains commas, {{#expr:{{{population_total}}}+1}} gives an error, so the population is not passed to {{Coord}}. Before Xenobot goes through and adds coordinates_type= to each transclusion, would it be okay to have a bot remove all commas from population_total= parameters? --Stepheng3 (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll note the bot has been modified to instead supply a coordinates_region parameter, and at the same time, will remove commas from the population total. Having a bot go through these twice would be a waste of resources. –xenotalk 23:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that information. Is the bot going to do any other cleanup I should know about? --Stepheng3 (talk)
You can always, use {{formatnum:12,000|R}} to unformat a number. Although, it would be nice if they were unformatted to start. For fields with decimal values, this can be problematic if someone is using a different comma/period convention for decimal points. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
So, the bot will remove commas as a "best-practice"; but also wouldn't it make sense to strip the commas using the magicword in the coord statement? –xenotalk 17:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. I suppose this reverse-formating could be added to the unit conversions as well (see above). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
That would be a very good general rule, I think. The problem tends to lie that upstream and downstream templates might, or might not, format things or conversely expect them formatted. I think the rule of "be exacting in your output, generous with your input" would be good for this template. Si Trew (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I've started work on this in the sandbox. Unfortunately, I still haven't got the density calculation to accept the commas. But I think I'm close.--Stepheng3 (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I've got it working. Spork, please take a look at the sandbox code and promote if you deem it worthy. --Stepheng3 (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. How about using {{formatnum:{{{population_total|}}}|R}} rather than {{#if:{{{population_total|}}}|{{formatnum:{{{population_total}}}|R}}}}? I'll update the sandbox. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, would it be better if I put most of this logic in the subtemplates? There are multiple calls to checkauto and densdisp, and presumably, all could use this same logic. Also, I think the logic in the coord call can be simplified, but I will have to work on that a bit. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Your changes look fine to me. I'll leave this issue in your hands. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Phase 1 is complete, adding the {{formatnum:|R}} to {{Infobox settlement/densdisp}}. I'm going to check on the area and length conversions next. By the way, one interesting check would be if the population contains a decimal point, which would result in an incorrect density. I have seen this quite a bit. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed most of the non-integer populations back in March, so hopefully there aren't too many right now. But if you want to create a maintenance category, go ahead.--Stepheng3 (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, something to keep in mind. The second phase is now complete, with {{formatnum:|R}} added to all the various subtemplates and to the auto coordinate type generator. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Stepheng3 (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Obsolete category?

Is there any continuing need for Category:Geolinks maintenance? It is empty, and from looking at the category page, it appears that it was intended to be populated by two deleted templates, {{Geolinks-US-cityscale}} and {{Mapit-US-cityscale}}. Since the templates no longer exist, perhaps the category can be deleted? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say go ahead and delete it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree if for no other reason than being given the opportunity for a fresh start, take it. If it is needed, it can be created, perhaps under another name – or another category is already serving the purpose. Si Trew (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I've gone under CSD G8: Categories populated by a template that no longer exists. Si Trew (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

native_name_lang

Resolved

The |native_name_lang= logic sees to be broken; see Bishkek. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about what it did or didn't do that made you think it was broken? --Stepheng3 (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Bug found. With the additional white space the output is now <span class="nickname" lang="cn" xml:lang="cn">子科滩镇</span> compared to the former <span>子科滩镇</span>. jonkerz♠ 16:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The template source is locked, so here comes a clarification: the vCard info is not displaying correctly; Search for "子科" in the xhtml source of Template:Infobox_settlement/testcases and compare the template and sandbox template to see the bug in action. Here [2] is the fix (a white space after the first class="nickname"). jonkerz♠ 18:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 Done Hopefully that fixed it. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, both. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

coordinate error case

I notice that {{Infobox settlement}} can generate bizarre coordinates when longd= is blank and latd= is not blank. For an example, see [3]. I have three ideas for dealing with this situation:

  1. Display an error message in the infobox
  2. Don't display any coordinates -- don't transclude {{Geobox coor}} at all
  3. Add the article to a maintenance category

We could also do any combination of the above. We might also try to address the issue at the {{Geobox coor}} level or the {{Coord}} level. Opinions, preferences? --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've put some code in the sandbox to add pages with this error to a temporary maintenance category. This should allow me to see how common or uncommon the error is. I'd be grateful if someone with admin powers would copy/paste the sandbox (Template:Infobox settlement/sandbox) to the live template (Template:Infobox settlement). --Stepheng3 (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Done. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. So far I see only three instances of the error, so it may not be worth adding an error message. I'm thinking we should just omit coordinates if longd is blank or missing. I'll follow up further in a day or two.--Stepheng3 (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure, we could switch to a {{both|{{{latd|}}}|{{{longd|}}}}} to the various {{{latd|}}} in the if statements. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Much what I was thinking. I've prototyped the switch in the sandbox and tested it on the testcases. Please copy/paste to the live version if you're satisfied with the change. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Please copy/paste Template:Infobox settlement/sandbox to Template:Infobox settlement. Thanks, --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Done, although I used the {{both}} template instead. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

dependencies between parameters

In my efforts to transition Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan over to using {{Infobox settlement}}, I've run into some unexpected behavior on the part of this template. Many of the blank fields seem to depend on the presence of the one before, so that blank1_name_sec1 is hidden if blank_name_sec1 is blank (or omitted) and so forth. This is demonstrated in the latest version of Template:Infobox_settlement/testcases#Test_case_4. This unexpected behavior is an impediment to my work, and I don't see it documented anywhere. I glanced at the source code, but didn't see anything obviously wrong. Does anyone know what's going on here? --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have run into this problem before as well, and I don't see any strong reason for having it work this way. I would be in favor of removing this dependency. There are hacks to get around it, but they end up looking very messy. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. But how would one change {{Infobox settlement}} to remove the dependency? I'm still struggling to decipher the code. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Never mind -- I figured out how it works. I've coded a fix in the sandbox, ready to go live if there are no objections. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Done, as it appears to be uncontroversial. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

adding blank7

To complete the conversion of Template:Infobox City Japan to use {{Infobox settlement}} as a base, I'd like to add an extra blank field (blank7_*_sec1) to {{Infobox settlement}}. For symmetry, I propose to also add blank7_*_sec2. I've coded the change in the sandbox and tested it. I'm prepared to update the documentation. Please let me know ASAP if there are any concerns with taking this change live. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I've updated the docs. --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

coordinates_display=

I notice a lot of settlement articles that lack title coordinates, even though they have coordinates in the infobox. I think it might be worth running a bot over the articles which transclude {{Infobox settlement}} without setting coordinates_display=. Many of these articles need title coordinates. In particular, if the article transcludes neither {{Coord/display/inline,title}} nor {{Coord/display/title}}, then I think "|coordinates_display=inline,title" ought to be inserted into the infobox. Any opinions on this? --Stepheng3 (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems a reasonable idea. I only see two potential difficulties: (1) catching other infoboxes which generate title coordinates, which can cause clashes, and (2) if someone doesn't want them there for some reason. I recall an editor objecting to having the coordinates in both places, but I believe that editor only wanted them in the title, and not in the infobox. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 13:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Such esoteric variances are a plague on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
That might be a job for The Anome's bot, which already does a lot of work applying coordinates. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know, every infobox that generates title coordinates transcludes either {{Coord/display/inline,title}} or {{Coord/display/title}} at some point -- though possibly indirectly. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible to check to see if there are duplicate transclusions of {{Coord/display/inline,title}} and/or {{Coord/display/title}} on a single page? That has been a major problem. It's often hard to tell if there are duplicates, and it creates a mess in the title line. If we could check for that, that would be something. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I haven't found an easy way to determine the exact number of transclusions of a template, but I know it's possible to determine whether the number is zero or not. I requested and got a database report that lists articles transcluding both {{Coord/display/inline,title}} and {{Coord/display/title}}: Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles containing overlapping coordinates. I'm assuming such data are also available to bots.
Many tools ignore inline coordinates. For this reason, I think it would be good for every article about a settlement to have title coordinates.
What often happens is that someone (or somebot) notices the lack of title coordinates and adds them (typically at the bottom of the article) without noticing (or caring) that there are already coordinates in the infobox. This creates maintenance issues, because now the coordinates are encoded twice, and fixes to one do not get reflected in the other. The coordinantes_display= parameter provides a much better way to add title coordinates to an article about a settlement.
If there's no objection, I'd like to take this to Wikipedia:Bot requests. --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so it should be doable if you just check to make sure that there aren't coordinates in the title line, before adding the coordinates_display option. One could probably check this by just checking to see if it already transcludes one of the those two templates. If it does, then there must be something else on the page putting coordinates in the title line. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. --Stepheng3 (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I've taken this to Wikipedia:Bot_requests.--Stepheng3 (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I wonder: wouldn't it make more sense to display in title by default and simply remove the redundant individually-called coord statements ? –xenotalk 14:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I tend to do this when I see an opportunity, merging the coord to the infobox. Tricky for a bot to do, but I suppose it could be programmed. Simply making "inline,title" the default is not such a great idea, however, because then you'd superpose over any existing title coordinates. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Governing body

Can someone add the field 'Governing body' to the infobox? Ideally it should be just underneath Government type. Az88 (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me, but I will wait a bit to see if there are any objections. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Support. Please wrap with class="agent", as part of the emitted hCard microformat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I think sufficient time has elapsed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Done. Hopefully I did it correctly. Could someone update the documentation? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You can collapse: 

<td><span class="agent">{{{governing_body}}}</span></td>

to: 

<td class="agent">{{{governing_body}}}</td>

if you wish. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but instead just pasted one of the earlier examples where this wasn't possible. I will change it to make it a bit more concise. Thanks for the suggestion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you change this field simply to "Body" - "Governing body" is too wide for the infobox? 79.69.82.90 (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I can do that. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"population" parameter

Foo
Population
10
Foo
Population
 • Total
10
Foo
Population
10

The code seems to include a {{{population}}} parameter, but it isn't documented - what's it supposed to do?--Kotniski (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Good question. It looks like it is an alternative to {{{population_total}}} which could be used when there is only one population figure (e.g., no urban, metro, ...). Is this what you were trying to achieve with the &nbsp; in the total_type? See the examples to the right. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
By the way, it looks like it was added here, but not documented. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Code update

{{editprotected}} Please can an admin replace the code of the template with that in the sandbox? This will provide the intended behaviour with the area total when {{{total_type}}} is set to &nbsp;, as illustrated by Test Case 2. (I.e. the area will go on the same line as the word "Area", as already happens with "Population".)--Kotniski (talk) 09:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done, although might it be better to get a bot to go round and remove these &nbsp? I don't see any purpose for it, and it would be better for the template to handle the formatting. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
It serves to provide an option (you can either have "Area: x" and "Population: y"; or you can have "Area Total: x; Urban: x1; etc." ... ) Though it would certainly be better to do it in a less hackish way.--Kotniski (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, can we come up with a different way and not use &nbsp; here? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, looking at this thread and that one, I think you're right - the "population" parameter was added precisely for this purpose. There ought to be an "area" parameter similarly. That would be a much better solution than the total_type hack. (But it would be necessary to make changes in the code for unit conversions and density calculation, to take account of the possible alternative parameters.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Marker proposal

User:Dr. Blofeld/Settlement Recently came across a black marker svg which I tested on a different infobox and I thought it looked excellent, much more precise. Have a look at the infobox on the right. Would anybody support a slight tweak to a black pin? Partly the reason is that red pin often clashes on a green map and people with color blindness can't see it. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good here, and the color blindness argument is compelling. I wonder if there are other maps on which the red pin would be more visible. Also, I wonder if a large pin would be better. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The pin here could be made a little larger but it is smaller because on such a large scale map if the pin is too big it covers many miles in radius flooding the surrounding area. It needs to be as precise as you can make in on such a map. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a solution would be to make it bigger when the label_position is set to "none"? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Demonym

Can someone move the demonym field into the Population section of the infobox? I see no reason why it should be in it's own section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.5.13 (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move page, per discussion below. GTBacchus(talk) 20:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


Template:Infobox settlement → Template:Infobox populated place — To match the category names, per Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Categorising human settlements and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 17#Category:Settlements. I think that the current name should remain as a redirect, in order to prevent the need to fix all the current uses of the template. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_settlement/Archive_19&oldid=1146459543"