Template talk:Infobox UK place
 | Template:Infobox UK place is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg){kind=small}
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infobox UK place template. |
|
 | For discussions about the use of maps in this infobox, post April 11, 2007, please refer to this map-specific sub-page. The content of this template is affected by the 2009 structural changes to local government in England. A task-force and to-do list exists to ensure Wikipedia's content is accurate and up to date. You can help too! Please visit WP:2009ENGLAND for more infomation. |
|
 | This template was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
| 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23 |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3. |
Other names
editCurrently, this template only has local name and [other] language name. Can an other name parameter be added, so alternative (sometimes older or shorter) names, that still have some official use, be added? It can be restricted to recognised other names, and not nicknames, if those concerns were raised in the past. Like allowing Aberdovey at Aberdyfi's infobox rather than the current manual {{small}} formatting? As Aberdovey is neither "local" nor "Welsh", but is still used probably enough to be in the infobox IMO?
If there was a older discussion similar to this, apologies. DankJae 22:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'd argue using multiple names and sizes in the one field as with the Aberdyfi example is perfectly valid.
- Use multiple names in those fields, it might not be 'local' but the field name is basically an alternative names field, so
| local_name = Aberdovey2, Aberdovey3, Aberdovey4
- or
| local_name = Aberdovey2 {{br}} Aberdovey3 {{br]} Aberdovey4or| local_name = {{unbulleted list|Aberdovey2| Aberdovey3 |Aberdovey4}}- and is small typeface, use a comma or
{{br}}linebreak or other templates to separate multiple names, the field doesn't need to contain one placename only - The following is used with a link to a webpage, also small typeface, combine these to explicitly call out that it's a localised spelling, so
| other_language = <auto link to lang article> | other_language_name = <place1>, <place2>
so| other_language = Cornish language | other_language_name = Aberdovey2 {{br}} Aberdovey3- or
| other_language = Cornish language | other_language_name = {{unbulleted list|Aberdovey2| Aberdovey3 }}- The Equalizer (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- @The Equalizer Ah ok, only mentioned the text size as per MOS:SMALL they should be avoided, and seen them removed from other infoboxes. Would prefer it is renamed to "other name" from "local name" then, but understand that doing all that work would be for little benefit. Could it being used also for alternative names be added to the documentation (TemplateData) though? DankJae 09:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, that MOS advice I wasn't aware of so thanks. Renaming the local_name field would however affect existing parameter use in articles. Might be better as you say to state in the doc that it can be used for alternative names? That can be adjusted. The Equalizer (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well the parameter's name has since been argued to remove other names here, so still believe that the parameter name should be changed or it will continue to be treated as only for "local names" by some. DankJae 22:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, that MOS advice I wasn't aware of so thanks. Renaming the local_name field would however affect existing parameter use in articles. Might be better as you say to state in the doc that it can be used for alternative names? That can be adjusted. The Equalizer (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- @The Equalizer Ah ok, only mentioned the text size as per MOS:SMALL they should be avoided, and seen them removed from other infoboxes. Would prefer it is renamed to "other name" from "local name" then, but understand that doing all that work would be for little benefit. Could it being used also for alternative names be added to the documentation (TemplateData) though? DankJae 09:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
London Assembly parameter issue
editHello, I have noticed an issue for transclusions of this template in London, namely when the place is within two London boroughs, both of which are in the SAME London Assembly constituency (e.g. Belgravia, which is in Westminster AND Kensington and Chelsea, BOTH of which are in the West Central constituency). When this happens, the Assembly constituency is repeated twice in the Assembly parameter in the infobox. Could someone with the required access and knowhow please rectify this? Thanks. Elshad (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox UK place/height
editCopied here from my talk page.
Template:Infobox UK place/height has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
would it be useful to add Elevation?
editCould be useful for stuff like "prone to floods due to low elevation"? GeorgeWL 1990 (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- A weak 'no' from me – I don't have strong feelings either way, but our infoboxes generally getting increasingly long and complex, so we need good reasons for adding yet more to them, following MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE (including: "the less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance").
- If the only reason is something about flooding, it's a definite 'no' from me – as Hebden Bridge#Flooding demonstrates, elevation alone says little about flood risk, which is a topic that needs covering in prose with flood-specific citations, where it's relevant to the article. Joe D (t) 14:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- it's a no from me too. We don't have high altitude settlements (over 1000m), anything lower is ho-hum. = clutter.
- Height above sea-level is almost entirely irrelevant, as anyone who lives in Cumbria will tell you. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- Didcot - where I live - has elevations ranging from 51 metres (167 ft) to 82 m (269 ft) above mean sea level. Some parts of town are prone to flooding; most is not. If you're wondering, my front door is approximately 84 m (276 ft). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Location split between two tier and unitary area
editSymonds Yat (more specifically, Symonds Yat East) straddles the boundary between Herefordshire and the Forest of Dean district in Gloucestershire. I've added it to the article's infobox, but it's not perfect for a few reasons.
- I used pushpin_map to avoid confronting people wth a map of the world. The map looks reasonable, but it's labelled as "##Location within".
- The layout of the section between Civil Parish and Region doesn't show (say) which county the Forest of Dean is in. Ideally, I'd like it to have the Herefordshire and Gloucestershire data one above the other in some way, and still have it look like a single infobox.
- I set hide_services because, without it, the template included West Midlands Ambulance Service and nothing else. I would have expected to see the services for Coleford and Ross-on-Wye combined.
Is there a way I can improve any of these things? Thanks. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Fixed mostly. As to point #2, it is split within the fields only, maybe there should be an article for each? Then each can have it's uncluttered infobox? As to this article, wouldn't worry on Forest of Dean not being clarified, that detail should be placed into the article and west/east between the parishes, district, unitary and counties expanded upon there, the infobox is just a high level summary and the multiple districts/counties etc hint at a division so if a reader wants to know more, they should read the prose. However, it could be mentioned in the field in a following bracket if desired like I did with the parishes although it may look untidy. Regs, The Equalizer (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. It looks a lot clearer now. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Formatting
editThe area_footnotes parameter causes a space to appear between the data being referenced and the ref number, in violation of MOS:REFSPACE. Zacwill (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
- There is a non-breaking space in the template code, it can be removed but the footnotes are also used for textual referencing such as a year, in which case it is desirable to maintain the spacing as the parameters ignore leading spaces. The
population_refparameter below it has the same issue. The template ideally needs some extra logic to differentiate between the types of referencing and insert a space accordingly. Regs, The Equalizer (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)