Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 8

Whitespace fixes

I've brought this up before, but the use of tab characters in a form which is supposed to be edited in a Web browser is insane. The same applies to indenting given the parser's tendency to treat whitespace as significant. I've updated the sandbox to remove all the tabs and to format against the left edge (while also prettying up the switch statements with new whitespace) - there's one additional change, to turn the website parameter into a proper key-value pair for accessibility reasons. There should be zero fallout from this, but I'm not going to request editprotected until it's been discussed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• I opposed this when you brought it up before. I notice you now agree with leaving all the section headings in. All you have done is remove the indents which is a matter of style. I prefer to have some indentation (I agree that in this template they are a bit excessive), but having none makes the code less easy to work with. My preference is to leave things as they are - it is matter of style, not a progamming necessity, but I can live with it provided you get someone else to support you. BTW I do most of my editing offline in MSWord - very useful for spellcheck etc. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• I have added a website parameter to the testcases. It is a long url but you will see that it expands the whole infobox - the current version splits it onto two lines. I therefore oppose the new website proposal. Twiceuponatime (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Using tabs for indentation is not just a case of style in a web form - for the vast majority of editors it makes it far harder to match the existing indentation style when editing, as hitting the tab key moves the focus rather than entering a tab stop. There should never be tab characters in WP code. As for the long URL, exactly the same problem is present if the URL is on its own line if given a long enough URL; that's a matter of editor judgement. Using a key-value code means that the code is more semantically valid, and thus more useful for readers who are using screen readers or other reading aids (as well as other automated tools). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Certainly using the normal WP "edit" facility, when I have done editing I often go for the tab key to move to the "Edit summary (Briefly describe the changes you have made)" entry item; it is quicker than grabbing and moving a mouse. I use monobook but suspect that the other front ends behave similarly. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I had a closer look at the indents and found that some are tabs, and some spaces. I have no objection to the tabs being replaced with spaces; what I object to is the indents being removed completely. Currently the tabs = 12 spaces; I would be happy if they were reduced to 4 spaces. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm fine with that as a start. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived

I have taken this opportunity to archive off the discussions as most of them had gone stale. There are one or two outstanding issues in the archived material—small text in captions and the red-dot labelling on the map. If these need discussing I suggest that new sections are created as the previous discussions went off track onto other issues and the direction we should go was unclear. Keith D (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, I thought page-move style archiving was discouraged these days? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to any discussion on this as much better to keep the history with the text in my opinion otherwise it is like doing a cut & paste move which is discouraged. Keith D (talk) 18:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ARCHIVE: "When archiving by creating subpages there are two different procedures that can be used, cutting and pasting the content, or moving the page. Cutting and pasting, which retains the talk page history in a single location, is generally preferred." Cut and paste archiving certainly isn't discouraged, at any rate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

middle used as HTML align value

There are currently 15 occurrences in the template code of <td> tags that have align=middle set, in broadly the following way:

<td style="text-align: center [...]" colspan=2 align=middle> [...] </td>

But middle is not a valid value for the align HTML attribute and causes w3c validation failure. It would be a valid value for a valign attribute.

Which of the following best applies to align=middle in the template?

• retain as some sort of browser fix
• amend to align=center (for browsers that cannot interpret style="text-align: center")
• amend to valign=middle
• delete (because horizontal centering is already applied by the style attribute and vertical alignment is unnecessary for single-cell rows)

Not sure why the attribute is needed at all! Thanks for your work on this template. Richardguk (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's probably a misunderstanding of HTML. For the <td> element, the attributes align= and valign= may each be given the standard value center (I think the relevant HTML spec is 3.2). Some browsers support the value middle, but only for valign= and not for align=; note that valign=middle is not necessarily a synonym for valign=center. The <th> element behaves similarly to <td> but its default behaviour is align=center.

Looking at where align=middle actually occurs, I'd say that most, if not all, should be align=center; we shouldn't remove, because we can't be sure that every browser will support the style-sheet instructions. As per suggestion 2 --Redrose64 (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that we can assume that readers will have browsers that support text-align: center at this point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I accept the blame for making the change to align=middle – it was the only way to get Firefox 1.5 to work correctly. I have done some more testing and [align="middle" valign="middle" align="center" valign="center"] all align the text centred horizontally. I have changed align="middle" to align="center" i.e. suggestion 2, but when I tested it I find that wiki changes it to align=middle (look at the html output from an article NOT the template code). (And wiki also changes <BR /> to <BR>). I have started a new section below to include all points currently being discussed. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Reducing text overflow

The website parameter output formatting discussion above raises the problem of the second column being narrow, leading to text overflowing to other lines or the overall box width expanding. Two suggestions.

1. Do the column 1 headings need to be in boldface?
2. Would it be appropriate to rewrite some of the lengthier headings in the first column (table headings) to reduce the likelihood of overflow in entries in the second column (table data)? Constituent country and European Parliament seem to be the widest headings, and Country might suffice for the former though I'm not sure what wording could replace the latter. (Also, as administrative areas are listed from small to large, it would make sense for parliamentary areas to be listed similarly, UK preceding European, reversing the present order.)
3. The all-caps formatting of post towns, while useful to distinguish postal from geographical or administrative areas, is causing some post towns to line-wrap, sometimes making them look like two separate address lines. Would it be better to format post towns as all-small-caps?

{{Allcaps|{{{post_town}}} }} → {{Sc|2={{lc:{{{post_town}}} }} }}

For example, assuming the parser works in the right order, Appleby-in-Westmorland might have its rendering changed from

Appleby-in-Westmorland

to

{{{1}}}APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND

Royal Mail formerly used all-small-caps for post towns when typesetting their own letterheads, so the format has precedent as well as compactness. Richardguk (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In order:

1. Bold labels are the {{infobox}} default, and work well on the majority of the project's articles. They're also the natural output of using TH elements for the labels, which is useful semantically.
2. If more compact labels don't lose any clarity then I'm fine with them.
3. I'd rather simply stop the given lines from wrapping (using {{nowrap}} rather than changing their appearance.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Chris for the feedback, and to Twiceuponatime for updating the sandbox.

You'll quickly see from Template:Infobox_UK_place/testcases that leading spaces are causing images to show as unformatted text, which I guess is trivial to fix. (Is it appropriate also to remove leading spaces where problems are not so evident, such as where they precede HTML tags, in case this causes subtler problems with the parser?)

1. Point taken re bold headings.
2. Thanks to Twiceuponatime for thinking of some shorter but clear headings and applying them in the sandbox. For the record, the sandbox changes are:
   • Constituent country → Country
   • European Parliament → EU Parliament
3. Re post town formatting, I agree that nowrap should be applied to the post_town fields, at least as an initial change. We can then review whether long post town names are causing widths to expand too much. (Simply applying the Smallcaps template, as shown in the sandbox update, is certainly inadequate, since input data may be Title Case or UPPER CASE. If we did apply small caps it would need to be in conjunction with the lc: magic word.)

   A broader list of examples to consider (19 to 22 characters): APPLEBY-IN-WESTMORLAND, BROUGHTON-IN-FURNESS, KINGSTON UPON THAMES, LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY, LLANFAIRPWLLGWYNGYLL (worth adding to the test page as an extreme case generally?), NEWBIGGIN-BY-THE-SEA, NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE (not in eponymous article, see Gosforth for example in use), ST. LEONARDS-ON-SEA, SALTBURN-BY-THE-SEA, STOURPORT-ON-SEVERN, STRATFORD-UPON-AVON.

Twiceuponatime has also updated the parliament order in the sandbox. I suggest that this be extended by moving the UK and EU constituencies after the Welsh assembly and Scottish parliament constituencies. In London, an assembly constituency is larger than a UK Parliament constituency but the area governed by the London Assembly is of course smaller than that of the UK parliament, so you could argue the ordering either way. I suggest the London area appear before the UK and EU constituencies, (In principle this dilemma could apply also to the Scottish, Welsh and NI constituencies but at present their areas are not generally larger than UK constituencies, and we don't currently list the regions used for the non-constituency members in those legislatures.)

Live template	Sandbox	Proposed
European Parliament UK Parliament Scottish Parliament London Assembly Welsh Assembly House of Keys NI Assembly	UK Parliament Scottish Parliament London Assembly Welsh Assembly House of Keys NI Assembly EU Parliament (↓↓↓↓↓↓)	Scottish Parliament London Assembly Welsh Assembly House of Keys NI Assembly UK Parliament (↓↓↓↓↓) EU Parliament

Richardguk (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There looks to be some problems with the spacing line that sometime occurs under UK Parliament in the test cases. My guess is that there should be no line under UK Parliament if followed by other entries in this group. Keith D (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest changes (October 2009)

As several people have noticed I have been trying to bring all the suggested changes together. I managed to introduce a few bugs yesterday which is why I kept quiet about it! I have now fixed my typos/bugs etc. The revised sandbox now contains:

Discussed above

tab characters removed from indents, and indents reduced in size

Website changed to two columns to match rest of table

align=middle changed to align=center (but wiki outputs middle in html code)

Constituent country changed to Country

European Parliament changed to EU Parliament

POSTTOWN changed to use {{Sc}} – see here

Not discussed (i.e. my unilateral additions)

Leading space for population_ref removed when no population present – see here

Dublin_distance added – it seems relevant to Northern Ireland articles (*) not in documentation yet

NOT done

Parliament order reversed i.e. small to large – I tested this and it has too many complications – Scotland and Northern Ireland have three levels not two. It probably could be done, but is it worth the effort?

{{nowrap}} NOT added to POSTTOWN – the latest testcases seems to cope ok

Comments are now welcome. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

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). Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Testcases looked ok, so  Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments on latest changes (October 2009)

• Might be an idea to make the postcode districts and the dial code appear in the same font size as the post town, it looks odd otherwise. MRSC (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Really don't like extending smallcaps to these fields! Smallcaps are not widely used in British typography so even the post town case is a marginal one. Also numerals are not usually smallcapped. On a practical level, readability is an issue if we make the typeface smaller for postcode districts and dialling codes, where readers need to be able to see each character clearly. — Richardguk (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
      Have amended a sandbox testcase to demonstrate an addtional problem that {{Sc}} causes to HTML entity rendering such as –, which might reasonably be supplied in the postcode district field. Also, references and explanatory asides will not look good when forced into smallcaps in these fields. — Richardguk (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• The post town (NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE) for Gosforth hasn't worked - due to the left hand side containing 'Metropolitan borough'. There was bound to be something that wouldn't work! One possibility is making all the left hand side terms {smallcaps} - not a lot of work but will change the appearance of the whole table. Twiceuponatime (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If found for Gosforth it varies by browser:

• Chrome 3.0: one line
• Firefox 3.0: two lines
• IE7: two lines

Not sure what to make of that. MRSC (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed(?) by splitting the header (Metropolitan borough) onto two lines. The post town is now fine, but there are gaps in the section above - see here. Nothing is easy!. The indents will need to be bigger - four spaces rather than two. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I preferred it when just the post town was wrapping! MRSC (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also we need to make London post town the same font style as the others, it looks odd in articles like Woodford that are in two post towns. MRSC (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done I had spotted that and was trying to slip it in quietly!. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Another problem is Perton. The post town has been linked and becomes red. When it was in caps before it went to a lowercase link. MRSC (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I will need to think about that. Probably it is wrong to link it as it presumably goes to Town (Governance) rather than Town (Postal services). Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately this does need fixing as there are around 1,100 articles with a wikilink in the post town field (excluding those where the LONDON link is applied automatically). It is understandable that editors might want to link to the post town where it is not identified separately in the main article (indeed, ideally, the template might one day automatically provide a link where one is not supplied!).
      Suggestion: reverse out the {{Sc|2=}} changes and either
      (a) leave as wrapping allcaps (as before) or
      (b) supplement the allcaps with <td style="white-space: nowrap;"> around the post town (as recently discussed) or
      (c) manually apply <span style="font-size:80%;"> to the allcaps (functionally if not semantically identical to the current effect of {{Sc}}; there are potential line-height issues).
      If I had to choose, I'd tentatively opt for (c). — Richardguk (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ideally any link would go to the postcode area article, but I don't think it would be possible to implement that now without seriously borking the articles that have links added. I don't mind which option is chosen, but please ensure it matches the London post town, or London is changed to match it. MRSC (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed re practicalities;
Re automated links (and note that we are both speaking hypothetically!): a link to the article about the town after which the post town is named (as in the 1,100 current links) would be more useful than a link duplicating the existing one to the postcode area article, at least where the article text does not already link to the main town (and even more ideally, there'd be an article for each individual post town per se, as the post town is conceptually and to some extent geographically different from the town itself!). A #switch template could enable automation of post town links and assist with disambiguation on the other pages where post towns are already linked, but as the #switch would need at least 1,500 entries, and would be transcluded 1,500 times if also used in the main postcode/town list articles, this might not be practicable. — Richardguk (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that there were articles on post towns (as distinct from towns that people live in). I've come to this discussion having viewed Bloxham, and seen that the post town (BANBURY) is redlinked, even though the wikitext contains [[Banbury]]. Is there a category for post town articles? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, changed from {sc} to option (c) <span style="font-size:80%;"> + {Allcaps} (for POSTTOWN and LONDON). Seems to solve the immediate problem, and also fixes the problem with &ndash; in Postcodes. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure if you've seen my comments at the start of this section about the downside of having any forced capitalisation in the postcode_district and dial_code output but I notice you've amended rather than reverted their capitalisation in the sandbox. The post town fix is urgently needed and looks OK in the sandbox so needs rolling out ASAP; but I think it would be a backward step to start capitalising/smallcapping the district and dial fields at the same time. — Richardguk (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't spotted your comments at the beginning. I have amended the code again. Posttown is now allcaps, the rest left alone. I have applied font-size:80% to all three and they look fine in the testcases. I have also moved the <SPAN> so that it applies to the data cell rather than to each text item, easier to code and technically more correct. (And capitalised so that code matches html output). Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued work on updating this. Still not sure whether I got my point across about the postcode_district and dial_code formatting, as you're setting them to 80% allcaps but (unlike post_town) I've argued strongly that any form of allcaps/smallcaps is inappropriate for these other fields. As you're asking for the live template to have these fields changed (in addition to the post_town fix that we all agree on), either I've failed to convey my point, or you've been too polite to explain your disagreement! Anyway, we agree that the post_town fix is currently the most urgent change required and your sandbox changes will certainly sort this. Would it a help or a hindrance if I were to edit the sandbox to demonstrate proposals in future? Not wanting to tread on your toes. Richardguk (talk) 10:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not a disagreement - it is a misunderstanding. I thought there was a request that all in that section were to be the same. Smallcaps (actually {sc}) has been rejected and fixed using font-size. It is easy to remove postcode + dialcode but the priority at the moment is the redlinks. I don't have a problem with anyone else editing the sandbox - I just worry about people working at cross purposes - safer to have one person working at a time. Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, appreciate all you are doing. Can get confusing when we are simultaneously discussing amendments to previous versions, the live template, the sandbox template, and possible future versions! You are right that User:MRSC did propose extending smallcaps to the postcode_district and dial_code, which you have implemented in the sandbox; I'm sure we will reach a consensus one way or another. I certainly don't want to stand in the way of fixing the redlinks! Richardguk (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Can someone please update the template with the new code in the sandbox. As you will gather from the comments above we have a problem - the template interacts with other templates and with the html code to give unexpected results. We need to amend quickly the last update (which is generating unexpected redlinks). The proposed code looks ok but we need to apply it to all articles so that we can identify any further problems. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done I have updated with version from sandbox. Keith D (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Further comments ... (October 2009)

• Woodford now looks much better with all the postal/phone info the same size & style. Perton is now also fixed (was redlinked post town). I'm can't say I'm totally excited about smallcaps. It looks alright in IE7, but in Chrome and Firefox the legibility is decreased. That said, I'd prefer the whole of that section to be consistent than a variety of styles. MRSC (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The last request was for me to leave POSTTOWN at font-size=80% and change Postcode and dialcode back to 100%. ({Allcaps} only applies to POSTTOWN). I have done that. That is NOT a final decision - see the results in the testcases and compare them side by side. I have no views on this particular point. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I must say that the post district is rather illegible at the smaller size in Firefox. Keith D (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is now the most urgent matter to resolve (postcode_district and dial_code). It may be better to fix this before tackling the other issues we are now discussing, so we are not rushed into implementing several subtle changes before studying test cases and reaching consensus.

— Richardguk (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• I unilaterally introduced a change to Metropolitan areas. This was to solve the problem of POSTTOWN being wrapped – I split 'Metropolitan County' onto two lines. It works but makes the previous section a bit gappy. I can improve that by having a heading of Metropolitan and then subheadings for County and Borough OR I could make the font smaller – see here for the three options. None is perfect – it may be one of those where we have to go for the least worst option. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Its getting a bit messy and I've lost track of the original problem we are fixing. :) Change it to District and County, and do the same for what is currently "shire county". MRSC (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[MOVED COMMENT UP INTO THREAD]
We need to distinguish between shire and metropolitan counties in the infobox, the current arrangement is fine. Keith D (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MRSC, but perhaps Keith D can elaborate on his counterview. I'd say met/shire status is relatively unimportant to most readers, especially now that metropolitan county councils have been abolished. But it would be nice to find a way to convey the status more concisely. Suggest we take our time on this one so we can also look at related headings. Also "Principal area" is an obscure label for Welsh unitaries and I think someone objected to it here a while ago. Each area in Wales is either a county or a county borough; it's debatable whether a county borough is also a county in common parlance for Welsh council areas, so perhaps this label could change from "Principal area" to either "County" (risking offending the county boroughs with this simplification, but mirroring the proposed English non-unitary label) or "Council area" (mirroring the Scottish unitary label).

Incidentally, I've added some sections to /testcases showing all the parameters in use with dummy values.

— Richardguk (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should be using the reduced size font. It is causing an accessibility issue in Chrome/Firefox. If text wraps it is still legible. Should we go back to where we started? MRSC (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly be happy to lose the smallcaps if there were an alternative way of preventing post towns from wrapping without messing up the table. I think that smallcapped post towns remain preferable to seeing them wrap, but there may be better fixes. What was the reason for rejecting nowrap as a way of keeping the post_town entry on one line? Would it force the first column to become cramped?

Broadening the discussion: Wrapping is unavoidable for some other fields. For example, many constituencies have long names. But at present the formatting does not differentiate between wrapping lines and multiple entries for fields such as council area or constituency. It might be too complicated to apply borders between the cells in the second column for multiple entries. But why not apply a small hanging indent so that wrapped entries do not align the same as multiple entries? (Similar to wrapping in a book index or telephone directory.) A hanging style could perhaps be applied once at table level and suppressed for the centred merged cells. The only cells with nowrap at present are the official_name and various non-English names in the merged columns at the top of the infobox; it seems to me that, ironically, these are the cells which would suffer least from wrapping so maybe we have the right solution but in the wrong place.

— Richardguk (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me. How about sand boxing it?

I would quite like the option to add local authorities. When we designed this template there were not too many articles on the LAs, now Category:Local authorities of England is filling up and I'd like the option to link to some of them. In Shropshire Shropshire Council is getting added as the UA field, which sees it described as "Districts of England", which clearly it is not, its a council! I would like to see this added below parish/district/county fields, perhaps just with the calling syntax giving the article and this template rendering it as "- Council"? MRSC (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nowrap Just to clarify the nowrap problem. If it is applied to the second column, the first column remains at its current width. If the minimum table width (240px) is insufficient then the whole infoxbox is spread sideways to accomodate the nowrapped text - see the first example in /testcases re website. The problem only occurs when there is a long name in the first column e.g. 'Metropolitan County' AND the post town is also long e.g. NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE for Gosforth. I am beginning to think it might be easier to live with the problem in the few cases where it does happen. Has anyone found any other instances, other than N-U-T? Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

---

• In order to move things along I am going to ask for an update. This is for:

Font-size: POSTTOWN (80%), Postcode (100%), dialcode (100%). This will solve the fuzzy problem in Firefox and appears to be an acceptable compromise.

Revert the POSTTOWN problem for Gosforth back to square one i.e. the POSTTOWN will be wrapped. I suspect that this is only a problem for Tyneside (i.e. places in Tyne & Wear and Posttown = NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE).

Introduce three free format lines (free1, free2, free3) each with a label (free1_label …). I propose that these remain undocumented for the moment – they should be useful for testing purposes (and used in the next section).Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Could someone update the template with the code in the sandbox. The only thing we have settled at the moment is the size of the text for Posttown etc. The rest need to be discussed further, and tested more thoroughly, hence the need for the three extra options.Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made the changes to the font size as requested. I wasn't sure about the "User defined lines" because that doesn't seem to have been discussed and I'm not sure that live code should be used for testing - you can always do that in the sandbox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes (November 2009)

Post town wrapped (Gosforth)

Possible alternatives

The boxes to the right show the problem with the wrapped Posttown for Gosforth, and the three solutions I came up with. I am tempted just to leave it as it is. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The post town is not wrapped on my screen for any of those, including the original. Meanwhile, I'm not happy with the way Arkley looks with a variety of sizes for postal information. I want the post town put back to how it was originally, before we started changing the size. MRSC (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I have restored Posttown to 100% (in the sandbox) – this makes the results visible in testcases. I accept that this will solve the particular problem for Arkley but is only going to introduce an additional wrapping somewhere else. We are going to have to reach some sort of compromise on this one - whatever we do someone will be unhappy. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Disregarding size of lettering and readability - which may be as much to do with the user's monitor as the browser type and settings, skin etc. - I see two problems at right: (i) in the "Post town wrapped (Gosforth)" example, "Tyne and Wear" is above its heading "Metropolitan county"; in the "Possible alternatives" examples, 1 & 3 are OK, but example 2 has the four words "Newcastle upon Tyne Tyne" against "borough" on one line, with "and Wear" against "county" on the next. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

These are caused by the example using line breaks within cells rather than separate table rows using the actual fields in the template, so they are unintentional. I've recoded example 1 into separate rows and added a missing <br/> to fix the comment re example 2, hope that helps to show what Twiceuponatime intended. — Richardguk (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess there is some subjectivity as to what looks best, though I wouldn't favour small caps if there were a reasonable alternative. Have added testcases for long post town names, using "Ceremonial county" to pad the width of column 1 (since "Post town" alone is not as wide as many fields in commmon use). I suggest that we at least experiment with "white-space: nowrap;" in the sandbox (100% font-size), as even the longest of post towns would not make the infobox hugely wider.
(Another alternative would be a hanging indent in the <td> CSS. This might also fix problems with wrapped and multiple constituency names – eg region and constituencies in Barnsley, constituencies in Blackwood and Hamilton. On the other hand, there is already a small inter-row space which, if noticeable, conveys the same meaning; and hanging indents would in turn cause untoward effects where, rightly or not, line-breaks have been manually coded into the parameter values – eg constituencies in Belfast.) – Richardguk (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sandbox restored to where we were (after edit request in following section). Thanks also to Richardguk for fixing my typing - looks like I need a new pair of glasses! Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor accessibility improvement

{{editprotected}} In a couple of places the template generates text like this:

"[[File:Red pog.svg|8px]] Monmouth shown within [[Wales]]" → " Monmouth shown within Wales"

That little red dot is linked to its file page, which creates unnecessary chatter for visually impaired readers who use screen readers. Instead, as per the guideline on alt text, the template should generate this:

"[[File:Red pog.svg|8px|link=|alt=]] Monmouth shown within [[Wales]]" → " Monmouth shown within Wales"

Please install this obvious sandbox patch to do this. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done - sandbox version copied in as per request. Keith D (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please set de:Vorlage:Infobox Ort in England as interwiki-link. Sa-se (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Keith D (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Police and Fire

Can you have a look at Brackla to see if you can work out why Police and Fire services are not showing. I have compared with Bridgend, where they do show, and can see no obvious reason. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Working fine now; must be one of things. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's working because I've just fixed it! Well, I've fixed Brackla, not the template....

The template is looking up the emergency services based on the value assigned to the unitary_wales parameter.

Unfortunately, the appropriate article was moved in May 2009 from Bridgend (county borough) to County Borough of Bridgend and then to its current location at Bridgend County Borough (which is the page to which you understandably linked).

The subtemplate code in Template:Infobox UK place/local reveals that the template currently only recognises

• [[Bridgend (county borough)|Bridgend]] (which will correctly redirect, as in the Bridgend article that you refer to); and
• [[Bridgend]] (which the template shouldn't really accept because that link is to the town not the council area).

I've fixed Brackla for by amending unitary_wales = [[Bridgend County Borough|Bridgend]] [[Bridgend (county borough)|Bridgend]] in the infobox.

This highlights the need for the template lookup code to be reviewed and perhaps updated to reduce confusion with this and other lookups.

— Richardguk (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. Will this be a problem with the other Welsh county boroughs? Potentially it could affect Caerphilly County Borough, Conwy County Borough and Wrexham County Borough, all of which were moved at the same time, and possibly even Rhondda Cynon Taf, which was recently moved from Rhondda Cynon Taff. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The definitive answer may be obtained by the examination of the source for Template:Infobox UK place/local. At present, the following Welsh local authorities are recognised: Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion, Pembrokeshire, Powys, Neath Port Talbot, Swansea, Anglesey, Conwy, Conwy (county borough), Denbighshire, Flintshire, Gwynedd, Wrexham, Wrexham (county borough), Blaenau Gwent, Caerphilly, Caerphilly (county borough), Monmouthshire, Newport, Torfaen, Bridgend, Bridgend (county borough), Cardiff, Merthyr Tydfil, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Rhondda Cynon Taff and Vale of Glamorgan. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This then needs updating. Anglesey is now at Isle of Anglesey; Conwy (county borough) is now at Conwy County Borough, Wrexham (county borough) is now at Wrexham County Borough; Caerphilly (county borough) is now at Caerphilly County Borough and Bridgend (county borough) is now at Bridgend County Borough. Strange that the update to Rhondda Cynon Taf was picked up, but not the others! These need adding to the authorities recognised. Anyone able to do it? Isle of Anglesey is perhaps the most urgent, as even inputting [[Anglesey|Isle of Anglesey]] into the Principal area field causes it to display incorrectly. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The {{Infobox UK place/local}} template works by comparing the full wikilink passed, and not the ultimate link target. That is to say, if you pass [[Wrexham (county borough)]] it compares this against a list and finds a match; if you pass [[Wrexham County Borough]] the match fails, even though both of these ultimately resolve to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrexham_County_Borough. The template is protected, so changes need to be performed by an admin. See Template talk:Infobox UK place/local for an example of a change which I had put through yesterday (but is still incomplete). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Dublin

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)

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

...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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(<-) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

--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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

(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)

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

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)

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

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)

--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)

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)

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

(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)

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)

((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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Newry
• Belfast	31 mi (50 km) NNE
• Dublin	57 mi (92 km) S
Country	Northern Ireland
Sovereign state	United Kingdom
Police	Northern Ireland
Fire	Northern Ireland
Ambulance	Northern Ireland

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What are the purposes of infobox distances?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

Alright then:

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

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)

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)

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)

It's not enough not to be in a minority, it's necessary to build consensus for change. There was consensus about introducing the parameter. If the proposal were not made from behind a steamroller, perhaps there would be more chance of a consensus for reverting it. But right now, there is not:

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

Proposal

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Interesting thought. I support the principle, but it may be counterproductive to push for this unless there's a demand from the places concerned. Given the current name of the template and well-known sensitivities, as well as the separation of administrative functions, the benefits of extending this to the island of Ireland might not outweigh the difficulty in maintaining such a complex hybrid.

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.

Distance parameters in use in articles transluding {{Infobox UK place}}

Parameter	Articles
belfast_distance	66
cardiff_distance	27
cardiff_distance_mi	21
charingX_distance	2
charingX_distance_mi	38
douglas_distance	3
dublin_distance	1
dublin_distance_mi	1
edinburgh_distance	48
edinburgh_distance_km	1
edinburgh_distance_mi	4
london_distance	960
london_distance_km	2
london_distance_mi	15
Manchester_distance	1

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)

"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)

@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)

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)

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)

Imagine if you lived in Africa or America and looked at this. All these little distances averaging under a hundred miles. Sure, you haven't even left the county at that stage. There is a European walking trail which starts in County Cork, continues crossing England then picks up in Holland following the way down to somewhere around Italy. How far is that from Dublin? ~ R.T.G 16:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)