Template talk:Infobox UK place: Difference between revisions

Why does this template have the functionalty to show the distance to the capital of a completely foreign country? Belfast uses it. The Republic of Ireland is about as much a part of the United Kingdom as France or Zimbabwe. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some Belfast citizens would disagree. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and? Some citizens of Bradford might consider Mecca as their capital. Either the Republic of Ireland is a seperate state or it isn't. Of course.... it isn't. I intend to remove this function. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike France and Zimbabwe, the Republic of Ireland has a land border with Northern Ireland, and one which is freely crossed. (Conversely, the lack of a land-border with Great Britain would make it inappropriate to give the distance to London for most places in Northern Ireland, irrespective of UK sovereignty.) And, unlike Paris and Harare, Dublin was a part of the UK until less than a hundred years ago. So it is understandable that some people are interested in places within Northern Ireland in relation to the capital of the former Kingdom of Ireland, though it is certainly unfortunate that the choice of one or both capitals in the infobox could be perceived to have political connotations by some people. As a loose analogy: the distance from Gibraltar to (say) Madrid is perhaps more useful to know than the distance to London, notwithstanding the constitutional position. Since nowhere in Northern Ireland is closer to Dublin than to Belfast, I hope we can agree that if the distance to the former is stated, then the distance to the latter should not be omitted (except that we do not need to be told the distance from Belfast to itself). Perhaps we should compromise on the cross-border pettigo_distance instead. — Richardguk (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For info: The dublin_* parameters were added to the template on 31 October 2009. They seem only to be in use in two articles: Belfast (where belfast_distance would be inappropriate) and Newry (where belfast_distance_mi is used alongside dublin_distance_mi). More certainly, I know from an export that Belfast was the only article to use the parameters as at 10 October 2009. I guess from such minimal usage one could conclude either that there is little need for the parameters or that there is little harm in retaining them, depending on your point of view. Clearly Belfast has unique considerations. — Richardguk (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin is the capital of a different country. It's inclusion is not NPOV nor is it in the spirit of the various arbitration sanctions. Whether it has a land border or not is irrelevant. Do we have the distance to Berlin for French articles? Come on, let's get real. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I intend to remove this function." Perhaps you should find consensus first. I for one am against the removal of it, sounds like you are on a political crusade tbh. Jeni ^(talk) 10:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're failing to assume good faith...? OK. The code never had consensus in the first place. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I going to have to take this matter further? You have now abused your admin power to remove things from a protected template, when absolutely nobody in this discussion supports your actions? I suggest you self revert pending further discussion (though I'm sure you wont, so I may as well start preparing things) Jeni ^(talk) 12:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A better option would be to give some evidence of why this code should be used; such as examples from other encyclopedia, books, journals, gazetteers. I have provided a full (but frank) rationale as to why this should not have been included (Dublin is a city outside the United Kingdom for example, another being that it is open to abuse, and not NPOV, another being that this code never had support/consensus in the first place). I cannot accept opinion alone, particularly from an editor who has not participated in developing this template before and is making this incredibly personal. If there is suitable evidence that it should be readded, we can do that, sure, but the previous situation was unacceptable and offensive. So I ask, Jeni, what is the real-world evidence that this should be re-added? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So to confirm, you are refusing to self revert your non consensus edit? Off to ANI we go then! Jeni ^(talk) 12:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added that option so I accept responsibility for it. I was thinking more in terms of economic activity rather than the political situation. For parts of Northern Ireland Dublin is a more important economic and social centre than Belfast, and that interaction (potentially) needs to be included. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For other parts of Northern Ireland, Blackpool is a more important economic and social centre. For people in Dover, Calais is an important economic and social centre. For people in Bradford, Mecca is an important economic and social centre. OK I jest, but we can't just pluck these ideas out of thin air. By including this code - without discussion - we're now allowing Wikipedians to edit war whether they have Dublin, Belfast or London. That is a political crusade and believe me, there are political crusaders. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jza84, you've overridden the concerns of everyone who has responded to your comments and ignored the advice of at least the following three articles:

• Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus"
• Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary
• WP:STATUSQUO ("...the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change...")

Though you have responded to some of the points in earlier comments, you have not responded to others (for example, the historical role of Dublin as capital of the island of Ireland).

No one objected to the original amendment made three months ago until now, and you are the only editor to have done so. On the face of it, your proposal was opposed by 4 to 1 (supported only by the proponent) which is arguably a consensus of opposition (though I wouldn't preclude the emergence of some alternative consensus after further discussion).

If another administrator had seen an {{editprotected}} request alongside your proposal, I strongly doubt that they would have concluded that there was sufficient consensus to apply the change.

Editing a protected template without a single commenter having expressed support for your proposal, when you could instead have more thoroughly and dispassionately outlined the case for your changes, shows poor judgement for someone who has the privilege of administrator status.

I suspect that most editors here are reasonable enough to see the merits of both sides of this debate. It is unfortunate that your actions suggest that you are not among them.

— Richardguk (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo was the version without the non-consensual distance to a foreign city. It wasn't a revert, it was the removal of POV coding. And, no, only 2 editors have opposed it, not 4, and they have brought no evidence to the table (one of which has never editted this page before).

What is the real-world evidence that this should be restored? It can be restored in a click, but I have huge concerns, and this will not have a consensus because I oppose it strongly, and will continue to do so. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) I have provisionally restored the content. BUT.... make no bones about it, if no evidence is forthcoming, I will make a admin decision to remove it based on the above. That is, unless we can add the distance to London for Irish articles in the spirit of neutrality? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wish to make the change, the onus is on you to provide the evidence to support it. I do hope you won't be partaking in any more abuse of your powers next time you wish to push your POV through. Jeni ^(talk) 12:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jza: I should have thought that distance is usually of interest to people travelling by land, which connects Northern Ireland more strongly with Dublin than with London. The template itself permits any article to show distances from any or all of Belfast, Cardiff, Douglas, Dublin, Edinburgh, London and Charing Cross. Which, if any, of those are included in any particular article would depend on the enthusiasm, judgement and sanity of the article editor concerned. No one else seems to have had a problem with that.

Please also remember that each edit of this template invalidates the cache for 15,000 articles so no one should be changing the code on a whim (though I welcome your self-revert).

You state: "make no bones about it, if no evidence is forthcoming, I will make a admin decision to remove it based on the above." That's not how it works. If there is one person who has disqualified themselves from editing the template either way with legitimacy, it is yourself.

— Richardguk (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox UK place is intended for use with articles about places i.e. human settlements in the United Kingdom. I think that's quite clear. No matter if someone thinks it important to include Dublin it doesn't belong here. What's the point of having a template called Infobox UK place if it's just ignored? I even think a consensus to include Dublin should be ignored as it's a misuse of the template. I agree with every point that Jza84 has made. Jack forbes (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin is important economically, culturally, historically and politically to that part of the UK which comprises Northern Ireland. Its relationship to Northern Ireland is utterly different to the relationship between, say, France and Berlin, or Bradford and Mecca, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. There is therefore a good case, in my view, for it to remain in the template, and there is no merit (and a great deal to deplore) in Jza84's approach to the issue, which is based on his assumption (here and on other articles) that current administrative boundaries trump every other consideration - they don't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--But of course. I assume that London is not of important economic, cultural, historical, and political value to Belfast, or even Ireland? --Jza84 |  Talk  16:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter one little bit if Dublin is important in those respects. Dublin is the capital city of a foreign country and this template is called Infobox UK place. Either change the template name or leave out Dublin. I'm here to agree with Jz's argument, not to talk about his actions Jack forbes (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Belfast has no land connection to London, why not allow it to indicate the distance to Dublin, a nearby capital with which it does have a land connection? The existence of a distance between two places establishes only that they exist in the same universe, it is not evidence of sovereignty. Cardiff is not the capital of the UK but no one objects to its inclusion as a place of significance from which distances might be of interest. Personally, I don't think distances to anywhere are particularly important for infoboxes, but I can't see any grounds for such categorical objection. Nothing in the template precludes references to non-UK places if appropriate. You state that consensus "should be ignored". You can ignore consensus or try to change it; but if you ignore it then you should walk away not expect anyone to override it. But better to engage constructively instead. — Richardguk (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What has land connection got to do with this? Do we stop counting miles when we cross the Irish sea? You say nothing in the template precludes non-UK places. Adversely, I don't see anything there that merits the inclusion of a foreign city, especially when the template name is Infobox UK places. What is the point of having a template name when it is ignored. As I said, either change the name or leave out Dublin. Jack forbes (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this template shouldn't be giving the distance to the capital of another country -- especially since research above showed it's only actually used once. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like even the simplest things to do with Ireland degenerate into battlefields. As noted several times above, Dublin is not in the UK, and so it is inappropriate to include ot in a UK infobox. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Northern Ireland#Infobox UK place: distances because I believe that this discussion is well within that WikiProject's area of interest. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland as the discussion will be of interest to both North and South Ireland. Jack forbes (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also notified WP:UKGEO and WP:ENGLAND. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin has as much right to be there as Paris, Tokyo or Sydney. In that it shouldn't be there. This is about the UK, not other countries. There are places more important to a UK place than Dublin, such as New York, Geneva, Paris, Brussels etc. Dublin shouldn't be there. In fact Jza84 shouldn't be attacked for removing something that had no right to be there in the first place. It is a template about places in the United Kingdom, and unless Dublin wishes to rejoin the UK, it shouldn't be included. Canterbury Tail talk 17:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Dublin should be excluded. The last time I checked, it wasn't within the UK. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the point. The template - which has contained the reference to Dublin, unchallenged so far as I can see, since February 2007 - says that it "may be relevant" to places in Northern Ireland. I fail to see how that is in any way contentious or problematic. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The issue is not about whether Dublin is in the UK or not. The issue is about whether knowing the distance to Dublin is useful or not, for an article on a place in Northern Ireland. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fore-see growing protestations over its inclusion. To the inclusionists, please re-consider. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the issue is whether or not it is useful to know the distance between different places in the UK. Do you think it would be informative to know the distance between London and Paris? Yeah, sure it would, but it doesn't belong on this template because Paris is not in the UK, just as Dublin is not. Jack forbes (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note as well that the Dublin article doesn't include the distance to Balfast. Curious. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so long ago (in the stream of things) the {{Infobox Irish Place}} was used for Northern Ireland settlements. Those were replaced with {{Infobox UK place}} for much the same reasons as are being mentioned here. It was "POV", we were told, to use them. Northern Ireland was a part of the UK. It was as simple at that.

I understand how many GB editors would perceive the Republic of Ireland to be a foreign country. For settlements on Great Britain that is true. But, in the context of settlements in Northern Ireland that perspective falls short of reality.

For example, the info boxes (because the are UK info boxes) describe 028 or ++44 28 to be the dialing code for Northern Ireland. True. For the UK or "foreign countries". In the context of the island of Ireland, the dialing code for Northern Ireland is 048. Landline calls between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are charged at local or national rates. Between Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland they are charged at international rates.

That Northern Ireland is a part of the UK is reality. So too is it reality that Northern Ireland is a part of the island of Ireland. Telephony is just one example of where the context of settlements in Northern Ireland is equally the UK and the island of Ireland. The purpose of those inboxes is to provide an overview of contextual information about settlements. Currently the balance of the perspective they give is "UK context" only. The "island of Ireland context" is neglected utterly. That is not a neutral point of view. It does not reflect reality. (Though I do appreciate how many GB-based editors would think that it does.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--These are (semi)valid points, but I believe the distance to Dublin can be added to the prose of the Belfast article. I think it is not doing the Irish republican movement any justice to say that the Republic of Ireland isn't 'truly' foreign. It has a different head of state, a different currency, a different flag, a different law system, and, oddly enough, a different national football team and is a seperate member state of the EU, UN etc etc. It has an international border with the United Kingdom. Sorry, I know you know these things - I'm not trying to be flippant, but there are editors ignorant (through no fault of their own) to the facts. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be equally in favour of including a "distance to Edinburgh" parameter? After all, places in the north of England are closer to Edinburgh than they are to London. And it's all one island, just like Ireland. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Edinburgh is within the United Kingdom, include it. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Like I say, the distance to London should be added to Belfast if Dublin is. I'm glad that there is clarity on the issue that the Republic of Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom; there's about 2.5 million google results that agree, incase there's any doubt.

Presently, articles like Neilston have the distance to London (I added it). My view is that the distances should be to the capitals of the constituent countries only - against the documentation of this infobox (who said I'm a POV unionist eh?...).

That's my view too, and I'm slightly surprised that's not already standard practice. Those settlements that are capitals of their constituent countries, should give the distance to London, as the seat of the next tier of government. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the distance to Dublin could be added to the lead of the Belfast article, once removed from the template. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((edit conflict) x lots) That sounds reasonable. I agree that infobox distances should only be noted to their county's capital. Noting more than one distance looks arbitrary and just plain daft. Daicaregos (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I would be in favour of info boxes presenting summary information that is relevant to the topic of the articles in which they appear. I don't know what is relevent in the context of articles on settlements in Scotland. I do know that information relating the island of Ireland is relevant to articles on settlements on the island of Ireland. What do you think?

I don't think that "Distance from Dublin" is very pertinent information (neither do I think that "Distance from London" is very pertinent). Other information relating to the context of the island of Ireland that is currently missing from infoboxes on settlements in Northern Ireland should be added. Some information that is pertinent only to settlements on Great Britain should be removed. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RA, you say the balance of perspective they give is "UK context only" and the island of Ireland context is neglected utterly. Well, it's in UK context because it's a UK infobox. Also, I don't understand why you can't have {{infobox island of Ireland place}} or something similar. Jack forbes (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the content that's there is the "UK context" because it is a "UK info box". Having both would simply double up on much the same information. An {{Infobox NI place}} or adding some additional NI-specific flags to this (or the IRL) info box would be a solution. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above has been pretty mashed up. Can I suggest we follow normal talk page ettiquette by commenting underneath other people's comments?

Just for clarity, Northern Ireland was discussed throughout the archives: mostly at Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 1. I remember myself contacting the NI WikiProject about rolling the template out, but can't find it (I don't think it's that necessary). That aside, can we focus on Dublin? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "distance form Dublin" should go. It is not relevent to an GB context and is impartial in an NI context for reasons I don't need to explain. Similarly "Distance from Belfast" would be impartial for the same reason. Same with "Distance from London" (in an NI context) that same reason again and the very practical matter that there is a sizable ammount of water one would need to cross before getting there. The importance of these things seem to matter more in GB-context. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it comes down to: Do we go political Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom? or geographic Ireland, Great Britain? GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or find a way to include all? Personally, I think all places (and I mean all, not just Belfast or the distinctly republican areas) in Northern Ireland should have the distance to Belfast in the infobox, and the distance to Dublin in the prose. That's my preference and view. Failing that, I'd urge for the reluctant removal of both, but I think as editors that we're failing to knock our heads together and serve our readers. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or do we go for a neutral point of view and treat topics appropriately to their context and not along arbitrarily drawn sectarian lines that suit others? Per my comment above, there are also a number of things that should be added e.g. coat of arms, province, "List of places in..." should include "Ireland" (that list doesn't exist though), Police/Fire/Ambulance information is pertinent only to GB settlements (if necessary of the benefit of the UK perspective they could be merged in to one "Emergency services" field), "Country" is inappropriate in an NI context (I appreciate the feeling of GB editors on this but it is no less inappropriate). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the Dublin field was added because it can be considered economically important, however it is incongruous with the rest of the infobox. Infobox UK settlement is about administration: it talks about government, local fire and ambulance services etc, and the maps use modern administrative boundaries. It’s pretty straightforward that London is the capital of the UK, and per WP:PLACE Wikipedia uses modern administrative units, so the argument that Dublin was historically part of the UK is not relevant. Also, what kind of message is the Dublin field sending? That Northern Ireland isn’t part of the UK, or that Ireland never really gained independence? Fortunately it’s not widely used. Get rid of the field because it is not appropriate. Nev1 (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Indeed, the info box presents UK administrative information only. That is quite suitable in the context of, for example, settlements in England. For settlements in Northern Ireland that is only half of the story. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far I've tried to avoid taking sides. But, there are six sets of distance fields, all of which are optional, and all are allowed in any combination with the others. If two are filled in, instead of just one, one extra row is added to the infobox: nothing is taken away, and nothing enormous is added. Personally, I feel that for places close to the border, both distances could be useful - see example at right (if I had filled in the distances to Douglas and the others, one more row would show for each). We're not talking about adding new fields for Dublin - we're talking about whether the existing fields should be removed. If people don't want to fill them in, they don't have to.

So, what harm does it do to leave things as they stand? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly for Newry that is very pertinent information. After seeing it I have warmed to both the "Belfast" and "Dublin" field contrary to what I wrote above. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we tweaked that example infobox? change country to province for Northern Ireland. That's the descriptive at the Northern Ireland article. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside: The Belfast article was edited to include dublin_distance_mi on 15 January 2009. As stated above, the template was not changed until 31 October 2009, so the parameter was dormant for nine months and has had effect for three months. The Belfast article formerly listed the distance to London. The template allows distances to be shown for any combination of the documented capitals (listed alphabetically). The Newry infobox was updated on 21 October 2009. No one seems to have remarked on the change at Talk:Belfast or Talk:Newry. — Richardguk (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful if we outline why we think infoboxes should have distance information in general, before trying to agree on which places are appropriate to list.

My own response, for what it's worth (but I hope there will be a broad range of constructive responses so we can better understand what we are trying to achieve):

• Distance is of limited importance. My guess is that the information is mostly useful for people considering road journeys from a major transport hub to the place in question, or perhaps as a very crude indicator of whether somewhere is perceived as isolated or politically remote. For readers unable to interpret the map, the distance (if accompanied by a bearing) also gives an idea of the location of the place. For most readers, the distance (to anywhere) is barely more than trivia and of doubtful importance given the prominence that an infobox conveys to its contents. Places listed imply nothing about sovereignty because people wanting to learn the names of county/regional/national capitals will only expect to find this in the article about the county/region/nation. People associate distance with travel rather than with political demarcation.

— Richardguk (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before this, may I revisit the amount of support for Dublin - the original discussion was about Dublin specifically.

It appears that by sheer coincidence, the initial support for Dublin was just that - limited to 2/3 users. I count 7/8 users who oppose it (both including me, and it appears as strongly as me), and 2 users who have not specified their support eitherway. On this basis, I do not think it was unreasonable of me to remove this function (I was confident that it was not going to have consensus), and want to proclaim here that I intend to remove it on the basis of it having no consensus. Even putting aside the technical and socio-political realities/arguements that have been put forward, there is definately no consensus to include it anyway, and I understand there never was. Unless there is something overlooked and can be brought forth within say the next 24 hours, and/or until such time that there is consensus, I plan to remove it again.

I believe that if consensus changes, then we can restore this. And I believe once that's settled, we can move on to peripheral issues as to the rationale and future rollout of the distance feature as a team. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you would care to see the section #Latest changes (October 2009) earlier in this page, you would see that User:Twiceuponatime added the Dublin distance, and it was, to quote him, "Not discussed (i.e. my unilateral additions) ... Dublin_distance added – it seems relevant to Northern Ireland articles ... Comments are now welcome" (27 Oct). Later (31 Oct) he stated "Can someone update the template with the new code in the sandbox. These changes have all been discussed above and no futher comments have been received since I updated it (four days ago)". Indeed, no intervening comments were in evidence: to me, that is consensus. We therefore require consensus to remove it again. If it's not causing any trouble, which I believe it isn't, why bother removing it? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's an effective arguement for consensus, but eitherway, there's no consensus now that it has been revisited and brought to wider attention. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jza, you have lost any right to make any edits to the template from this subject because of your actions. It is in your best interests to leave it to someone neutral and uninvolved rather than continue to push your POV, you are hardly neutral. Jeni ^(talk) 00:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's not POV pushing. Take me out the equation - there are more voices here who want this field removed. It is you who is POV pushing, and you who is not neutral. Your threats do not override the validity of the majority. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Jza84: My figures don't agree with yours (I count 8 editors for deleting dublin_distance_* and 6 for retaining it as of now), but perhaps that's beside the point. You had the opportunity to state positively and constructively what the purpose of distance fields is, as a reasonable and neutral prerequisite for considering whether the Dubin field serves that purpose. Instead, you "proclaim" (for the third time) that you "intend" to use your admin powers without having established a consensus. There was a consensus when the change was proposed and for three months afterwards, until your arrival. The change showed up in the Belfast article and not a single person complained even there, hardly the least sensitive and prominent article to transclude the template. I can see merit on both sides of the argument (though on balance I support the status quo, just as on balance I supported the change when the parameters were first added and you were nowhere to be seen) but your conduct is at times appalling. — Richardguk (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm. OK. I wasn't intending to sweep aside the discussion about distances (I agree with you its a valid one), but I don't want it to take us away from the most urgent point (and I do think it is urgent, which is why I think I'm being misunderstood). I count your good self, Redrose64 and Jeni (i.e. 3) who want this field keeping. I count my good self, GoodDay, Malleus Fatorum, Nev1, CanterburyTail, Jackforbes, SarekOfVulcan, rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (and in an exchange elsewhere - which I didn't count - Parrot of Doom) (i.e. 8, now 9). I am unsure what Twiceuponatime and Ghmyrtle; there comments are not explicit in their support eitherway, just points to consider. I don't believe I am conducting myself in bad light here, do you? I think that is a fair summary of the levels of support. Regarding the rationale behind the distances, discussions appear throughout the archives. I happen to believe these are good fields to have, and, to apease the request, I think they are good for a few reasons, namely an element of geographic positioning (triangulation if you will), and showing the distance to the national capital - the seat of government from which the settlement is administered. I wholeheartedly believe I really have Wikipedia's best interests at heart; the distance to the capital of a foreign country smacks, in my view, in the face of political reality, cultural sensitivities, our policies on neutrality, no original research, verifiability and consensus, as well as present Dublin (and therefore Ireland) as a possession or part of the United Kingdom (I think it offends both the Irish in this respect, and the British by way of supplanting Belfast and London for Dublin). I have also mentioned above a gesture/compromise where the distance to Dublin can be added to the prose of an article too. I hope this comment goes some way to demonstrate that I'm not "steamrolling" or ignoring points, and may sway your opinion that I am not conducting myself in dubious, "appauling" ways. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then:

• Keep because it does no harm to leave things as is. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already included you in the figures above, so this changes nothing. Are you saying that the minority trump the majority and/or that they have no validity? I think not. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put up a WP:!VOTE because of your phrase "there's no consensus now", which is ambiguous: no consensus to keep - or no consensus to remove? See WP:DRNC. On 27-31 October 2009 when the fields were about to be added, I didn't state my opinion because I didn't actually care. Apparently nobody else cared either, so WP:SILENCE prevailed, which meant that they were added, and so they should stay per WP:STATUSQUO until there is true WP:CONSENSUS to remove them again. It's not a case of the minority trumping the majority: it's that good reasons trump bad reasons. In this case we need a good reason to remove these fields. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The majority don't want to keep it; the minority have produced no evidence to keep it. I'm not interested in WP:SILENCE, because it has been overturned by WP:CONSENSUS. There is no consensus to keep the field. I repeat, there is no consensus to keep the field. I'm not in the minority here, I'm part of the majority. I repeat, I'm part of a majority that does not want this field. The same majority that has cited mutually supportive reasons as to why it must be removed. I ask three fundamental questions: 1) Do you think seriously believe that there is a consensus, a present consensus to keep the field? 2) Do you believe that your minority POV (and I don't understand what this POV is based on) trumps that of the majority? 3) What real-world evidence is there that you can bring to the table that can help persuade the majority? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because
  1. no one objected before the parameter was added despite having an opportunity to comment,
  2. no one objected for three months afterwards,
  3. no one objected or commented on the talk pages of the high profile articles where the parameter has been used,
  4. distance is a signifier only of geographical proximity not of political sovereignty so arguments about this being a UK template are not relevant to the parameter under discussion,
  5. the template allows distances to be included for any combination of other national capitals in the British Isles so editors have complete flexibility not to use them or to use them multiply if appropriate to the article concerned whereas removal would only limit that,
  6. Belfast itself has no other capital to sensibly measure from,
  7. Douglas is not part of the United Kingdom but no one has argued that it should be removed from the parameters despite assertions that this is a key reason for removing Belfast, implying limited knowledge of the template or inconsistent reasoning,
  8. proponents of change have not stated the purpose of distance parameters, making it impossible to know how they are weighing the merits of this one,
  9. it is the status quo and there is no consensus for change as required by Wikipedia policy, and
  10. the editor proposing to make the change has already abused his admin powers and only self-reverted a recent change under threat of ANI (not relevant to the merits of the matter itself but relevant to whether any change would command broad support from the community).

— Richardguk (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. The proposal was a tiny one, that came in (in good faith) via stealth. I watch this page like a hawk (not to say I own it - look at the archives as to how wide-reaching I have been with the community), but I was inactive in October and missed it. I would have definately opposed it, and have done so upon its discovery.
  2. Ditto. But upon bringing it to attention, there is a majority who want it removed. Most people didn't know it existed. It is not a suitable reason to keep it.
  3. It's used on 2 articles. "high profile" is an arbitary label applied by you to give your minority POV weight.
  4. Belfast has London. Belfast is part of the United Kingdom. The capital of the UK is London. Dublin is not the capital of the island of Ireland, it is the capital of a seperate republic, like Paris.You mentioned people may want to know the distance to Dublin for historical reasons (the Kingdom of Ireland). What about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (which is just as much a historical kingdom) and therefore the distance to London?
  5. This is a poor shot. Look through the archives; this template is used for the Isle of Man. Douglas is not used for UK articles, purely the Isle of Man. Note I added Douglas and functionality with the Isle of Man..... after proposals and consensus. Users are quite within their rights to discuss and remove as appropriate; I'm not a stick in the mud. (P.S. take a look at Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place/Archive_5#Isle_of_Man).
  6. This is a matter that can be resolved after the foreign city/faux isle of Ireland capital/Republican POV button has been removed.Although I get the feeling that this is a false point; even with the reasons stated, would you change your mind?
  7. This is based on no policy I have seen. Are you saying that because nobody noticed an edit we cannot remove it???
  8. This is an irrelevant, vindictive personal attack that undermines the stubborn attempts to keep unwanted material. Take me to ANI a hundred times, it does not change the fact that the majority want this field removed. Note There are comments above commending my actions. I am a reasonable, experienced and FA-winning editor, found by process of consensus to be proficient enought to be an administrator. I do not believe in pushing minority POVs; I act in the interests of evidence and the majority, as is the case at the moment. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jza84: Re your point 7 (my point 9): Three people have stated above that they were aware of the October edit (not counting the admin who implemented it) and not a single editor objected before or after, until now. Consensus exists until disagreement becomes evident; it can change; but it is not a majority vote. — Richardguk (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template is clearly designed for places within the UK, not countries outside it. If you want to refer to the distance to cities outside the UK, do it in the prose. There's no rationale for including the distance to Dublin in a UK template. Oh, and get rid of the distance to Douglas too. Parrot of Doom 01:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be removed, wreaks of irredentism. It would be like having on the article Nice or Malta, "distance to Rome". Or on the Austrian articles, "distance to Berlin". Northern Ireland is at this moment in time, part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; the capital of which is London, or the constituency country capital, which is Belfast (this is the most suitable). The Irish state has no sovereignty of this geographic area and does not claim to hold it (should that change in the future, ie - the demographic implication of the Good Friday agreement swinging, then we change it to the distance to Dublin, not before). The only way this should neutrally stay is if articles for Ireland (the state), list the distance to London. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not supporting "keep" on grounds of Irredentism. I support "keep" because if I were visiting Northern Ireland as a tourist from another country - say, one with no UK or Ireland ties at all, like Sweden - I might look up a few places, and wonder how long it would take me to drive from that place to a major city. Fact: Dublin is the largest city on the island of Ireland. To pretend that Dublin is not within two or three hours drive from many other fair cities is a blinkered attitude. I do not care whether the six counties are governed from Belfast, Dublin, London or a floating platform moored in the middle of Lough Neagh. I am neither Republican nor Unionist. I just wish people would stop bickering, find a solution and get on with things that really matter, such as rebuilding the economy. Maybe then I could find a job which will keep me away from here.

So, I repeat: does it really matter that it is possible to know the distance from Newry to Dublin? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't really offer solid rationale apart from that everybody should hold hands and sing Strawberry Fields Forever. Vis-à-vis explaining how enlightened and inclusive your views are on NI politics (our personal tastes are not relevent, we're here only to report facts not innovate). We're not here to act as a tourist brochure or a political appeasement lobby, simply as an encyclopedia to report realities. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, fact. The capital city of which is London, not Dublin, fact. It reads like irridentism and given the notorious Anschluss tendancy amongst some who oppose the majority in NI, it is obviously incredibly contentious to add a foreign state's capital in its infobox. If we're going to argue about which cities are more relevent to said area, then Glasgow is more culturally relevent than Dublin. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Fact. Northern Ireland is also a part of the island of Ireland. Fact. As you write, we are here here simply to act as an encyclopedia and report realities. We are not here to prefer one reality over another according to our upbringing.

You wrote that it reeks of irredentism to have information pertinent to settlements on the island of Ireland shown in info boxes for settlements on the island of Ireland. Do you not think it is a very insular view of the world to think of the geographic and cultural contexts of settlements solely in terms of the state? I say "insular" since such a view is quite understandable with respect to settlements on an island comprised of only one state. For settlements on an island forming a single cultural (and obviously geographic) unit but occupied by two states, it is be truly bizarre to take such a view and present it as "informed".

Your remark that "Glasgow is more culturally relevent than Dublin" in particular betrays an essential lack of appreciation of the context of settlements in Northern Ireland. If you had proposed replacing the current field with distance to Finchley it might at least have shown some knowledge about Northern Ireland and demonstrated some wit with respect the question. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The British Isles is an archapelago which consists of Great Britain and Ireland. Fact. If Dublin goes in the UK infobox specifically on the NI part under the shady premise of "geography" (rather than sovereign states, like every other Wikipedia article), then London must go in the Ireland infobox under the same rationale too. Anything else surely comes across as POV jingoism of the lowest sort. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. Look at the BBC News website. Events in Republic of Ireland are on the whole given under the heading of international events. Except in Northern Ireland. On the BBC News website for Northern Ireland events in Dublin and the Republic of Ireland are given as "home news". This is the what makes settlements in Northern Ireland distinctly different from settlements on Great Britain. Dublin is a relevant reference point for settlements in Northern Ireland (despite partition, events in Dublin are still "home news"). This is in contrast to settlements on the island of Great Britain. For settlements there, Dublin is as much a relevant reference as London is for settlements in the Republic of Ireland (ie. not at all).

(The same is true were you to look at the RTÉ news website. Events in Northern Ireland are "home news" in contrast to events in the wider UK. The same pattern can be seen in other publications. Notice for example how travel guides such as Lonely Planet and Rough Guide group all of Ireland as one "country" in contrast to the statist approach they take elsewhere.)

I'm struck by the difference in approach by editors of the two (broad) perspectives on this question. Those who see Dublin as being irreverent do so from the point of view of nationalism and what is good for the this template (the "UK" infobox). Those who see Dublin as being relevant do so from the perspective of the articles in which this infobox appears. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I fully agree with all of Richardguk's points. Although Dublin is of course the capital of a sovereign state which is separate from the UK, it is not a "foreign" country in precisely the same sense as, say, Paris is, because it is also regarded as the capital of the whole of the island of Ireland by (at least) a substantial minority of the people and communities of Northern Ireland. Therefore it is appropriate to include this for use in relation to some (not necessarily all - it should depend on the views of local editors) NI settlements. Current legal and administrative arrangements and boundaries should not override all cultural and historical considerations, because they are not all-important - and, in any case, the Dublin government does currently have a role in all-Ireland structures and discussions which relate to the people of NI. (Incidentally, on the same basis I would have no fundamental objection to including London in the template for Ireland - provided that that is what the majority of editors in Ireland want. I assume they don't.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a UK template, for places in the UK, so it is not applicable to have distances to another country. However, we know in the political world that Northern Ireland is a special case. This appears to be already be reflected on Wikipedia by having both {{Infobox Place Ireland}} and {{Infobox UK place}} and as far as I can see editors are free to choose which template to use on Northern Ireland articles. It seems reasonable to me to remove the distance to Dublin from this template and add it to {{Infobox Place Ireland}}. MRSC (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MRSC: If the two templates diverge and shrink in their options yet are supposed to coexist, are we not making it harder for article editors by forcing them to choose from differing POV? By analogy, is it wrong for this template to continue showing distances in both miles and km when the UK government promotes only the former and the Irish government only the latter? Surely there is a middle ground. — Richardguk (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The middle ground I believe is to move the (island of) Ireland feature [i.e distance from Dublin] from this UK-centric template over to the template that covers the whole island. MRSC (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A single UK and Ireland info box is another approach. For NI-related articles, I could foresee edit warring over whether to use the UK or IRL infobox. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might make more sense to have the single UK and Ireland infobox. If we have a choice of Ireland Infobox or UK Infobox I forsee endless rounds of arguing over which Infobox to use, referrals for arbitration, working groups set up to consider the problem, polls conducted using proportional representation, editors banned for edit warring, or for canvassing...... Skinsmoke (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (since we are adding !votes). Richardguk makes very fine points and it would be stupid for me to duplicate them here. I can't find a policy that states that distances must be given to a city in the same country (in reality I didn't look because I know there isn't one). This is just common sense really. Jeni ^(talk) 10:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep At very worst it does no harm. (I have been convinced by Redrose64's Newry example). More substantially, the purpose of these infoboxes should be to give a summary of contextual information about articles on settlements. A "UK context" may be suitable for settlements on Great Britain (where the entire island is within the UK). However, per my comments above, for NI settlements the "UK context" of a settlements is only one part of the contextual information about a settlement. The "Ireland context" of NI settlements needs also be shown in order to give a balanced (and true-to-life) overview. "Distance from Dublin" is weak example of that need but it is at least more relevant to these articles than "Distance from London" (which may be suitable for settlements on the island of Great Britain but is quite ridiculous in the context of settlements on the island of Ireland). As an aside note, the strong UK administrative approach to contextual information that this infobox takes in at flaw IMHO. That approach may be flawlessly objective for settlements on the island of Great Britiain but is negligent with respect to contextual information for settlements on the island of Ireland. That approach needs to be revised. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I think distance from Dublin is, at least, more relevant than distance from London. However, I believe it would be more useful to get rid of the optional tag, and have distance from the constituent country's capital: Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast, London, Douglas (and presumably St Helier and St Peter Port), as appropriate. There may, possibly, be a case for an exception in Cornwall, where distance from London and distance from Truro, may be preferred; and for Northern Ireland, where distance from Belfast and distance from Dublin may be preferred. The capitals themselves could show distance from London (and, in the case of Belfast, distance from Dublin, if that was the wish). In Greater London, of course, distance from Charing Cross would still be used. One final thought, if the Cornish exception was used, would it also make sense to have a similar exception for the Scottish islands: Outer Hebrides distance from Stornoway and Edinburgh; Orkney distance from Kirkwall and Edinburgh; and Shetland distance from Lerwick and Edinburgh? Skinsmoke (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a !Vote going on here when there was already a discussion where the consensus was to remove Dublin from the template? Jack forbes (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not seeing a consensus, can anyone else see a consensus? Jeni ^(talk) 19:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because clearly consensus was not reached and the discussion is continuing. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought as much :) Jeni ^(talk) 19:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of you seem to be looking close enough. :) Jack forbes (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see consensus to remove it in the above discussion either. Neither can I see any substantial argument to do so. The essence of the reason given above to remove it appears to me to be that this is a UK infobox and therefore Dublin is irrelevant. The purpose of the infobox is surely to convey summary information about the subject of articles in which it appears? It is the subject of the articles that should therefore determine the contents of the info box. The argument that "this is the UK info box" is thus either a case of brute tribalism or an example of putting the cart before the horse. It certainly does not appear to approach the question from the points of view of what is best for the encyclopedia. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that we need to decide what the point of these distances is. There's a lot to be said for removing them entirely; they are rarely if ever referenced, and it's highly questionable whether it is sufficiently significant to merit placing in an infobox. If they are to be kept, we could make cases for any number of places - distances to national capitals, major cities, county towns, the largest towns of islands, central points of a city, etc. Clearly, there would need to be a limit to this; we do not want to see infoboxes with distances to five or ten different places. Skinsmoke's proposal above seems to be the absolute largest number of entries it would be reasonable to include, but there is no one right answer to whether any of these in particular should be used. Given this, my preferred option would be to entirely remove infobox distances. Warofdreams talk 23:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at old gazetteers it is common to give distances. These tend to be London and/or the nearest large town. Outside England it varies from London and/or the national capital and/or a nearby large town. The basic function of these distances is to provide context. To show how far the place is from some significant centre of administration. MRSC (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies. May I offer my apologies for stirring up this can of worms. Just to make my views clear (1) I have no views on the infobox (re Dublin); just as I said initially 'it MAY be relevant to NI articles'. (2) I do have strong views on the article. The articles MUST reflect the realities of the settlement. If the significant influences on the settlement are from the adjoining area then that MUST be reflected in the article. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem. I believe the change was in good faith; you declared it for what it was, an undiscussed but bold change. (Infact, WP:BRD applies in that respect).

To those saying there is no consensus to remove it, that's not how it works: There's no consensus to keep it. Per WP:SILENCE, consensus is assumed until opposition is voiced; once voiced, consensus is broken and the edit removed. The majority don't want it; the minority cannot hold the majority to ransome because they like it (do they even like it? I don't know, it's not clear).

That aside, if those in the minority trying to uphold this edit (for reasons unknown - they cannot account for consensus or cite any validity for the distance to Dublin other than I'm a POV warrior and they want to just keep opposing me), and cannot accept the possibility of removing the distance to Dublin in the infobox but making it a requirement (presumably via WP:UKCITIES) that all places in NI have the distance to Dublin in the prose, then I reluctantly join the calls to remove all distances from the infobox. --Jza84 |  Talk  12:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template has the functionality to be used with the Isle of Man. Institutions and demarcation were simillar and there was a request it be added. In view of the above discussion, which I think has mostly be constructive, I'd like to pool these ideas and suggest the following:

• Expand the infobox so that it covers Great Britain, Ireland, Man, the Channel Islands. I can't think of a candid way of saying this, but this template is superior to the Ireland one.
• Keep the distances, but (possibly via hardcoding), only use them to the distance of their national (i.e. devolved where appropriate) capital. The rational is that the national capitals are verifiable, give context and value to the reader for a place's location, and show how far aware the seat of government is.
• Explore the possibility of generating infobox distances automatically (wouldn't that be a good feature? I understand it is possible to calculate this using OS grid references).
• Agree provision that places on the island of Ireland have the distance to Dublin in the prose (something simillar is already recommended at WP:UKCITIES).

Thoughts? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's quite a constructive suggestion. If people can agree (fat chance of agreeing on anything to do with Ireland/Northern Ireland, but we live in hope|), how about putting it out to the Ireland and UK geography projects for comment? Skinsmoke (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a constructive approach. I'm still doubtful about referencing the location of Carlisle (for example) with London.

Distance to London is not relevant to most places. It could be deleted. Another option, if interesting to encode, would be:

• Choose a series of important cities as nodes, perhaps Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Belfast, Newcastle upon Tyne, York, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Norwich, Birmingham, Bristol, London, Southampton, aye, even Dublin.

• Those cities and places within one of them would have no distance marker.

• Towns outside would have a distance to the nearest node or to the two nearest nodes (which in the case of Holyhead might be Liverpool and Dublin, but that is fair enough given its position).

Howard Alexander (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed, maybe supportive When you say "superior", Jza, what do you mean? As was riased in 2007, NI editors (at least) thought that {{Infobox Irish Place}} was visual superior. It also contained more "human" infomation e.g. area, elevation, year population census, a clearer map, arms/motto of the settlement, etc. I would support a single UK and Ireland info box (I think it is poor to have so many different varieties across the 'pedia) but the UK info box would require a great deal of improvement first.

As a side discussion, I have raised the question of reverting to {{Infobox Irish Place}} at Wikiproject Northern Ireland. There as a bit of a steamroll in 2007 (I notice from the archives that you were invovled) and let's tidy that up first. I've also noted that there is a proposal to have a single UK and Ireland info box in that post and I'll leave a message now at Wikiproject Ireland. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I like the idea of elevation being added (why haven't we thought of that before?). The UK version also already allows for a variety of sources/censuses to be used as the reference for population. If there is a desire to keep the existing Ireland maps - fine, this infobox can display maps from a range of images. meaning mapping would continue as before if wished. Area is also already permitted in this infobox too. The UK version does have provision for a coat of arms to be displayed (see Bridlington as an example), but be mindful that in the UK tradition (and probably Ireland too) coat of arms cannot be granted to places or areas, but authorities and councils of those places, so it needs to be treated with care. But good points. Does that help at all? --Jza84 |  Talk  13:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding automation of distances, or removal of distances altogether: The following data may be useful to inform the debate. The figures are as of October 2009 and do not include cases where the parameter value is blank. That's 1,191 uses within 1,108 articles out of around 14,022 articles transcluding the template at the time.

Note the Manchester irredentist at Whalley Range.

Personally, I don't think distances are important enough and (in isolation) meaningful enough to be appropriate for infoboxes. But clearly they are already used in a significant minority of articles. — Richardguk (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Manchester_distance"? On that issue I do think that using cities as nodes is a big turn off. Do we use Manchester or Liverpool for Warrington for example? Or Leeds? A nightmare for sure. That's precisely why I'm so strongly opposed to Dublin, because it boils down to enforced tastes and sensibilities, POV wars and is difficult to police. I'd much rather see a hardcoded system where the national capital can only be displayed, and is generated say from the "country=" field, or (for London), the region.

I think the distances have as much a value as elevation; its another bite of information to the reader. Yes London is miles away from Carlisle, but isn't that the point; it's worth knowing how far.

Also, if the distances can be automated (if GENUKI can do it using OS grid refs - incidently for GB and Ireland - then why can't we knock our heads together and work it out?) then wouldn't that quash concerns about verifiability and users (say ip vandals) messing with the fields? I do think it's worth investing in. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Jza - Ah ... I had wondered. The arms seemed to have vanished when the UK template was rolled out. In the Irish tradition (all Ireland, no such thing as "UK tradition" in arms) arms are also awarded to persons (legal and natural) but it is appropriate to show them in places such as articles about towns etc. I presume too that calculating distance from OS grid would be relatively simple.

@Richardguk - I don't forsee great difficulty in merging the administrative regions. Ours are a much simplified version of your own and traditionally NI and ROI had the same set up: (optional: urban council ->) county/county burrough -> national. In between county/county burrough is EU constiuency (we have four). There are also the traditional provinces and (in some cases) the "traditional" county (e.g. Co. Tipperary no long exists in the sense of local government, but is still an appropriate reference point). All of these are shared by Northern Ireland in one form or another.

The changes so would be to add province (for both NI and ROI, could be determined by county), Dáil constituency (instead of Westminister constiuency), and EU constituency (which could be determined from county).

There is a question of language in the field names, "Lieutenancy" is a weird choice - no one in NI would use that! - "county" the appropriate word for both North and south. And yes, it would have to move from {{Infobox UK place}} ... and I would suggest against {{|Infobox British Isles place}}, but redirect could accomidate that even if it did!

Per the current Irish place name box, I would add rural population to the population statistics and these are important numbers to mainly rural settlements as exist in NI and ROI.

I'd like to give a go a "prettifying" the template (in my sandbox). That would give an opportunity to test what would be needed to integrate the two. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The merge of the templates may work. If you compare two random articles Lincoln and Kildare for example, this one is "cleaner" and the map presentation especially is more aesthetically appealing and would probably be an improvement to the Irish articles. An issue which needs resolving however, is the "provinces" part, since in the infoboxes are included provinces as they existed during the time of the Kingdom of Ireland. Similiar to the situation regarding "historical counties" in Britain, they don't actually legally exist today, but are rather cultural. Between 1979 and 2004 at a legal, regional level, the Irish state used for county groupings: Connacht–Ulster (not including NI), Dublin, Leinster and Munster. However since 2004, they use Dublin, East, North–West and South instead. Perhaps two fields are needed "historic province" and "region". - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct in a lot of ways but the new "regions" aren't significant in peoples lives or political affairs and in a state of flux (they had incarnations before 2004 also). They currently coincide with the EU constituency (and are likely to remain coinciding). Compare with regions such as the Border Midlands and West Region. These were a fad in playing with regional government but effectlivly came to nothing. They can safely be ignored.

The provinces are still important though (including for NI). For example, amateur soccer, aethletics, Rugby Union and Gaelic games are organised on the basis of the provices (in both ROI and NI). As are our equivilent of Britain's Got Tallent (although calling them 'North', 'South', etc. and with the addition of Dublin) and community events like Scór na nÓg (again, both NI and ROI). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The London Assembly constituency name is not being retrieved for places within the City of London. See Aldgate and Bishopsgate for examples.

The problem is that the other London boroughs retrieve the assembly constituency from the /local subtemplate using parameter level4, but the City values are given as a default at the level3 tier, and level3 is not supplied when retrieving assembly. Though the #switch happens within {{Infobox UK place/local}}, the simplest change would be to supply the missing parameter by amending {{Infobox UK place}}.

Specifically, the fix would be to replace this code in Template:Infobox UK place:

with this:

I've tried the amendment at Template:Infobox UK place/sandbox and added a testcase, which looks OK.

— Richardguk (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MRSC alluded to a problem above, but it seems to have been ignored. He mentioned that editors were linking Unitary authority to Shropshire Council, rather than to Shropshire. This appears to be common for some of the latest batch of super unitaries created in the latest local government reorganisation.

The longstanding principal appears to have been that the Infobox in a settlement should have a link to the local government area in which it was located, not the governing body of that area; just as it has a link to the ceremonial county. For example, Cheadle is linked to Metropolitan Borough of Stockport, not to Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council; Horsforth to City of Leeds, not to Leeds City Council; Eye to Peterborough, not to Peterborough City Council; Pwllheli to Gwynedd, not to Gwynedd Council. Indeed, in the vast majority of the country, Placename Council has been merged into, or redirects to, Placename, as in West Berkshire, Portsmouth, Medway, Cheshire East and East Riding of Yorkshire. Before the most recent mad dash to local government centralisation, this was never an issue: there were very few instances where the shire district and shire district council had separate pages; and the ceremonial county field never linked to a county council, only to a county. Nor has it proven a problem in the unitary authorities established up to this latest round, nor in the Scottish council areas or Welsh principal areas: the counties and county boroughs. The link is always to the local government area. I have yet to see any reason given why this should be changed for the 2009 unitaries, which would then be treated differently to any other local government area in the country. Ultimately, I think you have to ask yourself, what is the general reader expecting to find when following the link. Do they expect to find an article about the area, its population, traditions, economy, geography, history, people, language; or do they expect to find an article detailing how many seats were won or lost by the United Kingdom Independence Party and who had a row about a council logo?

For the exisiting unitaries the position in general is as follows:-

UK Infobox not used:-

• Blackpool

Link to unitary council

• Cornwall
• Northumberland
• Shropshire
• Wiltshire

Link to unitary area

• Bath and North East Somerset
• Bedford
• Blackburn with Darwen
• Bournemouth
• Bracknell Forest
• Brighton and Hove
• Bristol
• Central Bedfordshire
• Cheshire East
• Cheshire West and Chester
• Darlington
• Derby
• Durham
• East Riding of Yorkshire
• Halton
• Hartlepool
• Herefordshire
• Isle of Wight
• Isles of Scilly
• Kingston upon Hull
• Leicester
• Luton
• Medway
• Middlesbrough
• Milton Keynes
• North East Lincolnshire
• North Lincolnshire
• North Somerset
• Nottingham
• Peterborough
• Plymouth
• Poole
• Portsmouth
• Reading
• Redcar and Cleveland
• Rutland
• Slough
• South Gloucestershire
• Southampton
• Southend-on-Sea
• Stockton on Tees
• Stoke-on-Trent
• Swindon
• Telford and Wrekin
• Thurrock
• Torbay
• Warrington
• West Berkshire
• Windsor and Maidenhead
• Wokingham
• York

Settlements in Scotland and Wales, which can also be considered to be unitary authorities, also link to the ‘’area’’, rather than the ‘’council’’.

I suspect that the problem has occurred in this latest round because of the description ‘’Unitary authority’’ used in the template, which some have interpreted to mean the ‘’council’’, rather than the ‘’area’’.

So, two questions. Do we want to link to the ‘’area’’ or the ‘’council’’? if the answer is ‘’area’’, can we prevent editors misunderstanding the intention by rephrasing ‘’Unitary authority’’ to something like ‘’unitary area’’ or ‘’Unitary authority area’’? Skinsmoke (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever is decided, I suggest a link from the template doc page to a "List of ..." article, one which lists all valid authorities (subdivided into England, Scotland etc) which may be used, so that editors may choose the relevant one. I am sure that the distinction between Metropolitan Borough of Stockport and Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council is completely lost by many: placing just one of these two into that list will help some editors, and for those editors who use the wrong one, those eds who fix it can place a link to that list page in the edit summary as justification for their change. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the intention was to link to the area and not to the council, links to the council article, if there is one, would be found in the area article. If you are changing the name it needs to be short so as not to cause an extra line by wrapping or widen the box. Keith D (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with linking to the area is that the article about the area may not be about the same area as the Unitary Authority. In the case of Cornwall, the ceremonial county and the unitary authority are not coterminous. Are we to make a new article Cornwall Unitary Authority as a content fork to deal with this? Or are we to have two links to the same article in an infobox, with none to the council? DuncanHill (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning this again. The infoboxes should link to the area, not the local authority. The articles (such as Cornwall) by convention cover both the ceremonial county and the local government area, even when they are different in extent. It might be worth changing the unitary authority link to read District to avoid confusion. MRSC (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer [Placename District/Borough/City/County|Placename] where it exists, else use [Placename].

There are potentially at least three relevant articles for any administrative area: "Placename", "Placename District/Borough/City/County", and "Placename Council", with possible further variations of "Placename Ceremonial County", "Placename Traditional County" etc. I agree that we should be consistent and (as the infobox is primarily a list of the geographical hierarchy) list "Placename District/Borough/City/County".

The full range of existing headings is illustrated at /testcases. At present, the only heading that describes a council not a place is [Districts of England|Unitary authority] for unitary_england. In Scotland we have [Subdivisions of Scotland|Council area] which is the correct legal term. In Wales we have [Administrative divisions of Wales|Principal area] which is also the correct legal term but (unlike the Scottish term) is meaningless to most people and has caused some negative comment here previously (not from me!). In Northern Ireland we have [Districts of Northern Ireland|District] which is simple and accurate. Unfortunately, an English unitary authority may be in law either a district council (with the district sometimes also being a borough or city) or a county council, and many unitary authorities prefer not to mention the status of their area at all (hence, "Cornwall Council"), so there is no single term that is both readily understood and legally correct. Even the word "unitary" itself is a bit legalistic for an infobox and (ironically) not used in the relevant primary [qualifier added — Richardguk (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)] legislation.[reply]

How about changing the unitary_england heading to [Districts of England|Council area] or else [Districts of England|Unitary area]? The former term is friendlier; would it cause problems for areas that also have parish/town councils? (Apparently not a problem in Scotland, though their community councils have much less status than English parish councils.) The latter term is ugly, a bit obscure, but accurate to those who know what a unitary local authority is.

Also, how about making the Welsh equivalent friendlier by changing it to [Administrative divisions of Wales|Council area] (or [...|Unitary area] if that is too confusing to those mindful of Welsh community councils).

— Richardguk (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the railway station template seems to work quite well by using the inaccurate, but seemingly understood, Borough for this field. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but then {{Infobox GB station}} doesn't try to do anything clever with it: it's just displayed as entered, not tested against anything. {{Infobox UK place}} does all sorts - mostly emergency services but others too like the map; and they have to be in the right permutation. For example, if you pick the wrong region for the local authority in {{Infobox UK place}}, something like this can happen. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Just that, despite the fact that they use the term Borough, edtors seem to know instinctively, somehow, that this means Shire District, Metropolitan Borough, City, County, County Borough, Council Area, London Borough, Unitary Authority Area, Borough or Islands Area. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand why we should have two links to Cornwall and none to Cornwall Council in an infobox about a civil parish in Cornwall. "District" will confuse things even more (there aren't any any more in Cornwall). I think the argument that readers will expect a link to the history, culture etc under the unitary authority field fails - readers would expect that under ceremonial county, under "authority" they would ecpect information about the local authority as an authority - and that is at the council article. DuncanHill (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think, Duncan, that the point is that a reader would expect that field for a settlement in Cornwall to be used in exactly the same way as the same field for a settlement in Durham, Gwynedd or Aberdeenshire, considering that the same Infobox is used. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, it needs to be consistent. MRSC (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the "authority" field needs to be renamed. The authority for Cornwall is Cornwall Council, not Cornwall. I have to say that it still seems irrational not to have a link to the authority, but I suppose we'll just have to put it in the text where it will degrade the already poor prose instead of in an infobox where it can be seen clearly. DuncanHill (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right to an extent about the use of the term "authority"; the local authority of say Wigan, is Wigan Council. However, Whitehall seems to have declared the unitary geographic units (i.e. the districts themselves) as "unitary authorities", a term equal to "non-metropolitan counties" (reference here). I'm confident that the present situation, and the view put forward by Skinsmoke is, rightly or wrongly, referencing real-world and verifiable terminology: Cornwall is indeed one of the unitary authorities of England, so I'd have to support keeping the term "authority" and linking it to the district (in Cornwall's case, the county). --Jza84 |  Talk  01:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SI establishing Cornwall Council says Cornwall Council is the authority, not Cornwall. The infobox is fundamentally flawed - confusing administrative matters with geographical ones. Far better to split it into a geographical and an administrative section, put the Lord Lieutenancy area (ceremonial county) and other geo links in one section, and the authority, police, constituency etc into the other. DuncanHill (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to buy it: take a look at the title.... if not, it's avaliable for free here. It's not the sole definitive source, but it is just an example of the jargon in an uber-reliable reference.

And I'm confused by your second point. A county (and lieutenancy area) is an administrative unit. It is not something that appears as a natural phenomina. Same goes for England - it's human geography, not natural geography. My point was that some districts are called "authorities", and officially so. It's unfortunate and confusing, but true verifiable. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So some districts are officially called authorities - but Cornwall isn't, the authority is officially Cornwall Council, and judging from what else I've read on this page the same problem arises elsewhere. What is unfortunate and confusing is taking a "one size fits all" approach, which places standardizing the usage of the infobox above providing accurate internal links. DuncanHill (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. It's not that "some" are called districts, and others are called authorities. Those districts that are self-governing (i.e. unitary), are officially designated as "Unitary Authorities". I suppose the nearest comparison would be that all counties are counties, but some are called metropolitan counties. Cornwall is a county and a unitary authority. It's local authority is Cornwall Council. It is correct to describe Cornwall as a Unitary Authority because this is a type of district. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we just stick to making it harder for readers to get to where they were going. Put two links to Cornwall and none to the authority, and hope that no readers ever want or need to know what council a place is in. I'm out of here, consensus has been declared and acted upon during this discussion already, so I may as well stop wasting my time and yours. DuncanHill (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. But I assure you, it's not my fault this term exists. We cannot airbrush reality and must present the facts as they are. I understand your frustration, and detest the term "Unitary Authority" for exactly the same reasons you cite. --Jza84 |  Talk  02:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My fault he's taken the huff, I'm afraid. I had looked on here, seen that there was no further discussion, and reverted his reversion with the comment that there was consensus here to link to the area, not the council. In the meantime the discussion had reignited here unknown to me. Sorry Duncan. Even so, the position remains that you do appear to be in a minority of one, as far as I can see, which is about as consensual as it gets on Wikipedia. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we sidestepping the fact that "unitary authority" is the wrong heading to describe the area covered by a unitary authority? An authority is a body given certain powers (ie given authority), such as a local authority with powers over a locality, also known in this context as a (local) council. "Authority" = "Council". But the place itself is a district, borough, city, county or (informally) unitary area/district/county.

Though not used in the primary legislation, "unitary authority" is clearly defined in regulation 2(3) of the Local Government Changes for England Regulations 1994:

"'unitary authority' means any authority which is the sole principal council for its local government area."

That definition is cited or reproduced in many subsequent statutory instruments.

The Boundary Commission publication cited above uses "unitary authorities" as a shorthand for "non-metropolitan districts and counties for which there is a sole principal council"; in other words, they use the term inaccurately, but only as a heading.

A quick Google of the phrase confirms that the 1994 meaning is and remains the one in statutory use.

Which is just as well since only a lunatic would grant authority to a patch of land! Though whether it is saner to grant authority to a group of councillors is, perhaps, a POV.

In any case, the infobox is inconsistent in using the heading "Unitary authority" to describe the area for which a unitary authority is responsible, hence the understandable vexation of User:DuncanHill. I've made reasoned suggestions for two alternatives in my earlier comment, above.

— Richardguk (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In England (whose local government is a mess compared to Wales), the term "unitary authority" is correctly used where there is a single layer between central government and the parish or town council level, as opposed to two layers, county and district. For example, Swindon (borough) is within traditional Wiltshire, but does not have anything to do with Wiltshire Council (Swindon reports directly to Westminster), so Swindon (borough) is a unitary authority; however, the next district to the east, Vale of White Horse, is a district council within Oxfordshire (Oxfordshire reports to Westminster, and VoWH reports to Oxon), so neither Vale of White Horse nor Oxfordshire are unitary authorities. The heading therefore needs to vary according to the local government structure applicable in that area. This is presently handled by offering the editor the choice of whether to fill in |unitary_england= alone, or |shire_district=/|shire_county= as a pair. I think that if the correct usage were documented, with such documentation having a link to a list of valid entries, much of the confusion could be avoided. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter whether the term is being used "correctly" though: what matters is whether people understand the term when they are editing or reading. Clearly, from the diverging uses, editors are interpreting the term differently, both from each other, and from the original intent. For that reason, I would err on the side of the earlier suggestion of Council Area. I know User:DuncanHill doesn't think I get his point, but I really do. He has another point also, which really needs to be considered, which is whether there should be a link to the Council article as well. I would be inclined to say no, partly on the grounds others have given that this can easily be accessed from the Council Area article; partly because we have very few Council articles at present; and partly because there is also provision for a direct website link to the council on the Council Area article. But I'm prepared to be persuaded otherwise.

Incidentally, in conjunction with the thoughts further up this page on revamping the whole Infobox, why do we supply information on police, fire and ambulance services, but not on Primary Care Trust (NHS) or equivalent; hospital services provider; water and sanitation provider; and electricity distribution company? Should these be considered for inclusion? Skinsmoke (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Police boundaries are well-defined, well-understood and have some practical significance. Fire, less so, since a fire engine might cross a boundary if needed and public contact with fire brigades is (stereotypically) via a national emergency number. Ambulances, even less so, since the boundaries don't all follow council boundaries, and one would hope that ambulance drivers do not defer to boundaries in times of emergency. But the 999 association makes it hard to list one without all three (at least we don't list coastguard yet!). People have a degree of choice about medical facilities, and NHS PCT/SHA the boundaries are complicated and changeable, so I'd caution against including them. Many utilities compete against each other nowadays, and water supply and sewerage boundaries would be fiendish to ascertain. If anything, I think we should be inclined towards reducing rather than increasing the organisational information that we currently (attempt) to list, as it is often confusing for editors and not readily verifiable. Similarly, if we listed councils per se, we'd have to drop council areas to stop the list being ridiculously long, so I agree that we need to stick with local government areas (or districts etc) and describe them accordingly. It's not hard to follow a link from [[Placename]] to [[Placename District]] and from there to [[Placename District Council]], so long as the link to [[Placename District]] is not misleadingly headed. — Richardguk (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The French language version of this is a bit more swishy. In that one (and also found here), the first column head has a compass rose background graphic. It appears to be from the code class="entete map".

Is there an English language equivalent of entete map, whether we use it or not?

Howard Alexander (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A wider proposal inspired by the unitary discussion above. I know it's not helpful to have too many hares running at once, but hope it's useful to set this out as we consider various aspects of the template.

The problem: There's confusion among article editors about whether to link place names, and whether to use names of common areas, administrative areas or councils. This leads to inconsistency, complicates the current template code and can cause #switch comparisons to fail without an error message so that editors fail to understand why they are not seeing their ambulance service listed (for example).

The proposal: There are around 600 UK local authorities (excluding parish-level councils). It's a big list but not an overwhelming one. Why not have the template reference a list of all UK district-level authorities with a UK-wide parameter of (say) council_area = Placename? Let the template then do the tedious work of adding the wikilink and the county/region/emergency fields.

Advantage: It would be a lot easier for editors, and the template code would not be much more complicated than the current spaghetti of parameter retrieves. On the whole, a bigger but single list would be easier to maintain than the current multi-level combination. (For example, no one seems to have noticed this which needs fixing: ...#if: {{{unitary_wales3|}}}|<tr class=mergedrow><th></th><td>{{Infobox UK place/local|level1=Scotland|....)

Disadvantage: We'd need a transition project to delink existing parameters but once completed the template would be a lot simpler for article editors: no need to enter wikilinks or county or lieutenancy fields, and invalid area names would be rejected with a very obvious error.

The present flexibility is at the expense of great complexity, inconsistency and poor validation. We'd need to manage the transition carefully, but I think article editors would find the template a lot more inviting if we adapted.

— Richardguk (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no opposition, can we take this forward? Skinsmoke (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree we should action this. When constructing the table, don't forget about the two halves of Stockton-on-Tees (borough) being in different counties and also there are some minor differences between the regional boundaries and ambulance areas. MRSC (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremonial anomaly: All-too-aware of the affront to hierarchy that occurs at the Tees. In any case, we'd need error messages and defaults for any articles which (of necessity or through editor limitations) did not include district or even county values.

Ambulance trusts: For archived threads, I've found your external link to a list of ambulance trust boundaries (link no longer valid, but still online here). Everywhere seems definitive according to administrative or (in the case of Shrivenham) electoral boundaries, except for Glossop within High Peak and the split within Hart District. I see the template defines Glossop by postcode, which might only be a workaround. Any idea where we might get a comprehensive definitive list? Though I do wonder in practice whether ambulance drivers and their bosses are perhaps more pragmatic about boundaries given the likelihood of roads and vehicle access not respecting administrative borders!

As far as the Glossop area is concerned, the ambulance trust covers the same area as Tameside and Glossop Primary Care Trust. Looking at their website, that means that the former Municipal Borough of Glossop and the civil parishes of Charlesworth and Chisworth are definitely included. It isn't clear whether Tintwistle is included or not, but I would guess yes, as I can't see it being lumped in with Huddersfield or Barnsley, and there is no access to the rest of Derbyshire without going through Glossop. Conveniently, that would equate exactly to the SK13 postcode (give or take a couple of farms). Skinsmoke (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[continued from above] Other: Not aware of any other UK anomalies, except of course for the sui generis nature of the Isles of Scilly and the City of London. It used to be possible for English civil parishes to straddle districts, but I think that's no longer the case – and we already allow for multi-district articles. Fortunately, the district level has been quite stable since 1974, with most major changes being through simple amalgamation, so I'm glad the proposal has some support. We'd need to prepare the transition carefully of course. If there's continued consensus (hopefully we don't need to wait 3 months to ascertain that this time), perhaps we should create a subpage to consider the detailed principles, practicalities, implementation and transition.

Broader issues: Is the time also ripe for a broader review of the parameters in current use? I know that Wikipedia is better suited to gradual change, but if we're set to have a major recode, it might be useful to have a clear view of any features worth dropping or adding at the same time. (For example, (a) the Dublin discussion has led some people to suggest dropping all distances, and others to suggest including more; (b) it would be technically possible to autolink the post_town output and to calculate postcode_area automatically from postcode_district.) Personally, I do think it's better to have well-supported well-used parameters than a myriad of parameters that are poorly used and little understood among editors and, perhaps, little appreciated by most readers, since the article prose can contain any secondary information. That said, if we're serious about proposing to extend support to places in the Republic of Ireland (which seems overambitious to me, but which has been well supported here so far), then perhaps the parameter list for that needs agreeing before coding this major internal change.

— Richardguk (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest operating the new and old system concurrently. Create a totally new field that triggers the automation UK_principal_area or somesuch and then run a bot or use AWB to update the fields. When that is complete, turn off the old functions.

Automation from postcode district isn't fully possible because of some shared sectors. If I were starting from scratch again I think I would suggest limiting infoboxes to post town and postcode area (no districts). They are more trouble than they are worth, with edit wars in some cases over what districts cover the town etc. Even Royal Mail's own sources do not help. I realise others don't agree with that and want to include them, so fair enough. If we were to automate from postcode district it would not need any AWB/bot activity so it could be actioned separately. (actually no it would, because of entries like MK1-6 or MK1, MK2)

As far as the district automation goes I am happy for it to happen. MRSC (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the lieutenancy areas of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Howard Alexander (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Skinsmoke: Ambulance trusts: Ah, well the PCT has a statutory boundary defined as including 8 former wards of the borough of High Peak: All Saints, Gamesley, St Andrew's, St Charles, St James', St John's, Simmondley, and Tintwistle; which since 2003 have been replaced by the 11 current wards of Dinting, Gamesley, Hadfield South, Hadfield North, Howard Town, Old Glossop, Padfield, St John's, Simmondley, Tintwistle, and Whitfield; and which more simply correspond to the 3 civil parishes of Charlesworth, Chisworth, and Tintwistle, plus the unparished area of Glossop. (For the sake of completeness, the area is also equivalent to that covered by the 3 Derbyshire county divisions of Etherow, Glossop North and Rural, and Glossop South; and approximately equal to that inhabited part of High Peak north of 53.41°). In the District of Vale of White Horse, the Shrivenham ward boundary seems mercifully stable since 2003. Any clues for partitioning the District of Hart?

@MRSC: Post town automation: Great! Bit fiddly to code but not impossible to automate unsplit multi-district lists such as "MK1, MK2" if there's a #switch against the wikicode equivalent to trim(left(postcode_district & ",", 4)) ?= "MK1," (pseudocode). It's rare for lists to get so long that a dash/hyphen would be needed instead of several commas, but even that could be coded if felt worthwhile.

@Howard Alexander: Lieutenancies: Fair point. The NI county boundaries have the advantage of being well known, though poorly correlated with administrative boundaries. It would be helpful to have more information about the lieutenancy areas of Scotland, as the current article understandably reflects the roots of the boundaries in abolished administrative areas, but does not indicate the contemporary equivalent. No doubt some areas do not have a match, but I'd guess that several still do at council area level (at least the 4 lord-provostships and the 3 island areas) or at some other useful level.

— Richardguk (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hart is a bit out of my area of knowledge, but do the Ambulance Trusts not also follow Primary Care Trust boundaries there? Just a guess, but I'd assumed that the ambulance areas were constituted from PCT areas throughout England. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, at the moment, when used in some articles about Manx places, this template is pointing to a disambiguation page (Douglas) rather than to Douglas, Isle of Man. Please could an admin fix this? Thanks, --BelovedFreak 12:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it shouldn't need an admin. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the problem now. The template coding appears to be wrong as it shows the distance to [[Douglas]], when it should show the distance to [[Douglas, Isle of Man|Douglas]]. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an admin because it's fully protected. --BelovedFreak 13:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, grasped it at last, thanks. Skinsmoke (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:) I'm not sure how many admins watch this page, so I've requested assistance at WP:AN. --BelovedFreak 13:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It just needs an {{editprotected}} to be placed here. But there are a couple of similar technical errors mentioned above (London Assembly lookups and unitary_wales3). Perhaps we can roll them up into one edit? I'll update the /sandbox first. — Richardguk (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've applied all 3 fixes to Template:Infobox UK place/sandbox if anyone wants to confirm consensus and flag up {{editprotected}} below. — Richardguk (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have switched in the sandbox version as they look uncontroversial, though unsure of the london_borough change which adds the same entry for both level 3 & level 4 but will take it as correct. Keith D (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, I'd forgotten about {{editprotected}}, I knew there was something like that! --BelovedFreak 17:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Keith D: Thanks. The /local subtemplate is a bit mixed up, but adding an extra parameter to the subtemplate call seemed to be the simplest bugfix, and it would break other boroughs if the existing parameter were removed. But it's not utterly illogical, since London boroughs are equivalent both to counties and to districts in various respects.

@Belovedfreak: Thanks for pointing it out here. Anyway it looks like Keith didn't need the magic word to appear!

— Richardguk (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<-Just for future reference, I believe Keith D, Warofdreams and I watch this page (or at very least were closely involved with its past). I missed this one, but I'm contactable for changes. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  17:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. I would like to see the place name on the map in bold letters; not just the name at the top of the infobox. The borough lines make the place name hard to read. I have been using <b>Place Name</b> to do this, but people with AWB keep changing in to '''Place Name''' because of WP:MOS, but this messes everything up: you get the name at the top of the infobox in bold italics with an extra apostrophe on either side. Can we make it so that both the name at the top of the infobox and the name on the map are given in bold font? -- Fly by Night (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I often find that boundaries or other detail make the pushpin label difficult to read, and I have got around this by trying out each of |label_position=top, |label_position=bottom, |label_position=left, |label_position=right to see which works best.

However, I see that a template with similar purpose, ie {{Infobox settlement}}, now has a parameter |pushpin_label=, which allows custom text in that label. Maybe something similar could be added to this template. Thus, instead of putting (say) |official_name=<b>Jumbles Reservoir<b> and losing it, you could put |official_name=Jumbles Reservoir |pushpin_label='''Jumbles Reservoir'''. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we see an example of where this is causing a problem? I'm not disputing it, just wondered how big a problem it is. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. I know it demonstrates the issue in principle, but it's an odd example. It's a reservoir article; it should be using {{Infobox lake}}, whilst also, Lancashire is not a metropolitan county, and the Metropolitan Borough of Bolton is in Greater Manchester... WP:UCC and all... However, I think that the label position resolved/resolves that example anyway. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't pull up the editor on either the infobox type, nor the local authority matters. I shall take it to Talk:Jumbles Reservoir#Infobox matters. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all - it just sidetracked the issue slightly. I've had a little bit of private contact from Fly by Night. Hopefully that's all sorted now. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a useful addition to separate out the pin label from the title as I know I have fudged some multi-word places by using a non-breaking space which may be problematical for some users of the data. Keith D (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding the name of and the distance to the nearest rail station? 89.240.7.86 (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]