Template talk:Infobox UK place

2 questions and an observation

• Should a "combined authority" field be added between county and local authority?
• Can the word area be added after authority on unitary authorities and my proposed combined authority field, since the link goes to the area that an authority covers not the authority itself?
• The template code has a thing with mobile app infoboxes where list of places at the bottom of the infobox seems to have no wrap making the infobox scrollable left-right for something that doesn’t need to be (for an example search somewhere in County Durham on the app) but the mobile site seems to not have the issue (with Durham wrapping onto the second line). I suggest " List of places:" line break " UK • … • …".

Chocolateediter (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The area has been removed on some articles as not been a natural term supported in reliable sources so would not support adding to infobox. Keith D (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

What about devolved region Chocolateediter (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Other names

Currently, this template only has local name and [other] language name. Can an other name parameter be added, so alternative (sometimes older or shorter) names, that still have some official use, be added? It can be restricted to recognised other names, and not nicknames, if those concerns were raised in the past. Like allowing Aberdovey at Aberdyfi's infobox rather than the current manual {{small}} formatting? As Aberdovey is neither "local" nor "Welsh", but is still used probably enough to be in the infobox IMO?

If there was a older discussion similar to this, apologies. DankJae 22:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue using multiple names and sizes in the one field as with the Aberdyfi example is perfectly valid.

Use multiple names in those fields, it might not be 'local' but the field name is basically an alternative names field, so

 | local_name = Aberdovey2, Aberdovey3, Aberdovey4 

or

 | local_name = Aberdovey2 {{br}} Aberdovey3 {{br]} Aberdovey4  

or

 | local_name = {{unbulleted list|Aberdovey2| Aberdovey3 |Aberdovey4}}  

and is small typeface, use a comma or {{br}} linebreak or other templates to separate multiple names, the field doesn't need to contain one placename only

The following is used with a link to a webpage, also small typeface, combine these to explicitly call out that it's a localised spelling, so

| other_language = <auto link to lang article> | other_language_name = <place1>, <place2> 

so

| other_language = Cornish language | other_language_name = Aberdovey2 {{br}} Aberdovey3 

or

| other_language = Cornish language | other_language_name = {{unbulleted list|Aberdovey2| Aberdovey3 }}  

The Equalizer (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@The Equalizer Ah ok, only mentioned the text size as per MOS:SMALL they should be avoided, and seen them removed from other infoboxes. Would prefer it is renamed to "other name" from "local name" then, but understand that doing all that work would be for little benefit. Could it being used also for alternative names be added to the documentation (TemplateData) though? DankJae 09:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that MOS advice I wasn't aware of so thanks. Renaming the local_name field would however affect existing parameter use in articles. Might be better as you say to state in the doc that it can be used for alternative names? That can be adjusted. The Equalizer (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Potential to use Wikidata here to make our lives easier?

(This is not yet an edit request, but might develop into one.)

Returning to editing UK places articles after a long break, I've been noticing some trends in out-of-date information that needs maintaining, and it has got me thinking about whether there might be ways to speed up the updates while reducing the burden on editors of keeping UK places up to date. In particular, population in the infobox stands out as one that is very commonly either missing or out of date, and from a bit of poking around, Population looks like it might be one of the things that could be relatively easy to streamline with Wikidata.

I've been playing with ways to pull in Wikidata at User:Steinsky/sandbox, and Help:Wikidata#In_infoboxes also gives some instruction on using Wikidata in infoboxes. Looking at the code for this box, it's going to be a bit more complex than the example in the help guide, because of how {{Infobox UK place}} takes population and population_ref as separate inputs and then combines them to pass them on to {{Infobox}}.

I think what we'd probably need is to add something like this 'else' clause at line 80, before the closing braces of the #if statement in data6:

| {{#property:P1082}} {{#if:{{wikidata|references|raw|{{wikidata|label|raw}}|P1082|{{wikidata|property|raw|normal+|{{wikidata|label|raw}}|P1082}}}} | <ref name=population_ref>{{wikidata|references|raw|{{wikidata|label|raw}}|P1082|{{wikidata|property|raw|normal+|{{wikidata|label|raw}}|P1082}}}}</ref> }}

(In that code, I opted for

<ref name=population_ref>{{wikidata|references|raw|{{wikidata|label|raw}}|P1082|{{wikidata|property|raw|normal+|{{wikidata|label|raw}}|P1082}}}}</ref>

instead of

{{wikidata|references|{{wikidata|label|raw}}|P1082|{{wikidata|property|raw|normal+|{{wikidata|label|raw}}|P1082}}}}

so that it gives users the options to subsequently cite the same source elsewhere in the article.)

I've not yet explored in detail how exactly it's done, but the Wikidata Data Import Guide suggests that it should be possible to take a spreadsheet from the ONS Parish Profiles, do a bit of work to make sure the parishes are correctly matched to Wikidata QIDs, and then bulk import the data.

But I am completely new to using Wikidata, so I guess I'm asking:

1. Is there any technical reason why adding this to the template could be problematic?
2. Can someone better versed in these things than me review the proposed code (or suggest better code for achieving this end)?
3. Do any WikiProject UK geography people foresee any downsides to doing this?

(I've also noticed that with the recent election, changes to local government structures, constituency boundaries, and parishes, there is a lot of governance information on place articles that is out of date. But I don't want to run before I can walk with Wikidata!) Joe D (t) 15:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Automation of data updates is good. Repeated manual updates are bad. However, as you noted, you can only do automatic updates if you trust that the source you use is itself up to date. Generally I'm in favour of what you want to do, subject to the same cautious approach. BTW. Wikidata also contains coordinates. I wonder if there's anything that can be done there with settlements? 10mmsocket (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

One risk would be that our article might not be about the Wikidata item with the same name; in your example, that the article might not be exactly about the parish of the same name. So can you talk about how the matching's done (eg is it on article name) and how it could be controlled, amended or overridden if need be? Is there any way that such a mass change could be reviewed, eg (wild guess) by comparing a Quarry query of uses of {{Infobox UK place}} against the Wikidata or the ONS spreadsheet, before going live? NebY (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both. I'm a newbie with Wikidata myself, so I'm hoping that somebody with more experience might join the discussion at some point, to make sure I've understood everything correctly, but:

• The code does not simply match a Wikipedia page to its Wikidata instance by page title -- a Wikipedia page and a Wikidata instance are explicitly linked. You can see this on e.g. the Dorchester Wikidata instance: our Wikipedia page on Dorchester, Dorset has a disambiguation suffix, which the Wikidata instance doesn't, but if you scroll to the bottom of the Wikidata instance you'll see the correct Wikipage page is connected to it, and it's that connection that would be working in the proposed Infobox code.
• I suspect that before we could bulk import census data from an ONS spreadsheet into Wikidata, I (or a team of us) would have the job of checking to make sure that the parish name in the ONS spreadsheet is matched to the correct Wikidata instance. At a guess, that job might be as simple as checking the text is the same, or it might involve merging the ONS spreadsheet with a spreadsheet of Wikidata QIDs for UK places, I haven't investigated that far yet.
• The proposed Infobox code always favours values that have been supplied in the population= field where it is used in a Wikipedia page, and only looks for Wikidata if nothing has been supplied in that field, therefore it will always be easy for a Wikipedia editor to overrule the Wikidata on an individual place article just by setting population=. This also means that on any Wikipedia article where population= has already been supplied in the Infobox, a bulk import to Wikidata will not automatically make any difference to that article -- we would have to delete the supplied population= field on that article before it would bring in the Wikidata (but when you have hundreds of articles to update, deleting the population= field on each of them is still a much easier job than finding the relevant data and putting it in for each one!).
• Also, individual Wikidata instances can be edited if one has incorrect information, or if, say, somebody produces a population estimate between censuses. You'll see that the test case I've been using, Stalbridge on Wikidata, has population data for both 2011 and 2021 census, and the proposed Infobox code automatically pulls in the most relevant entry.

Joe D (t) 17:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm also in favour of automation. Wikidata has GSS code (P836) which might help with the mapping to those datasets. Wire723 (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the GSS tip -- that has made it very easy. Just 177 failed GSS code matches in the 11,344 records, which weren't too much hassle to match manually. So the data import is go, happening right now.

Before I finalise a request to edit the Infobox template then, there are couple of formatting choices to be made.

First: how should it be styled in the infobox. Options are with/without year/source ("determination method" -- i.e. "census" or "estimate") suffixes; with/without Wikidata edit buttons; and with/without citations:

Population	2,678
Population	2,678 (2021)
Population	2,678 (census 2021)
Population	2,678 (2021 census)
Population	2,678
Population	2,678 (2021)
Population	2,678 (census 2021)
Population	2,678 (2021 census)
Population	2,678
Population	2,678 (2021)
Population	2,678 (census 2021)
Population	2,678 (2021 census)
Population	2,678
Population	2,678 (2021)
Population	2,678 (census 2021)
Population	2,678 (2021 census)

Including determination method and edit button looks very cluttered, so my preferred option is:

Population

2,678 (2021)

References

Shout if you disagree and want to argue in favour of something else.

Second, if we do include a citation:

1. A plain <ref>
2. A fixed reference name, i.e. <ref name=wd_population> (I've included the "wd_" prefix because some articles might already have a named ref "population" in them).
3. A dynamic reference name using the "point in time" and "determination method" in Wikidata, e.g. <ref name=2001_census> or <ref name=2015_estimate>

There are advantages and disadvantages to each the fixed vs static reference name. With a named reference, you can keep citing it elsewhere in the article, e.g. if it has a demographics section. The problem with that comes when we next update the data in Wikidata with newer population figures (and a corresponding new reference). If we have a fixed reference name, that means that those later citations are citing the new reference, even if the page hasn't been updated with new data. If we have a dynamic reference name, those later citations will break, because the citation they're calling no longer exists. I'm convincing myself that it's better not to give the reference name as I write (and the code is then much easier too).

So, again, shout if you disagree with my conclusion that the reference should not be named.

Thanks, Joe D (t) 16:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm OK with leaving the reference unnamed. Especially if it links to the top level of the Parish Profiles, which isn't specific enough to be used as a ref in the article body.

A more general point: are there any guidelines on the need for references when pulling Wikidata values into infoboxes? -- Wire723 (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

In short, yes, there are guidelines about using Wikidata information in infoboxes. The best way to do it is to use Module:WikidataIB, making sure that |onlysourced= is set to true. See this 2018 RFC, which requires that information pulled into infoboxes must be cited to a reliable source. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Any idea what percentage settlements that we're interested in actually have sourced data? If it's a tiny number then this whole exercise might be academic. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Ignore. I now realise it's a dumb question as these Wikidata entries are being populated from the ONS data, so references can be added. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had assumed that learning how to do a bulk import into Wikidata would be the time consuming bit, and getting the template right the relatively easy bit, but it seems to be the opposite – the Wikidata import is complete already, while I've been staring baffled at template code for ages.

The data is available to use, so if anybody wants to start trying it out on an article-by-article basis, you can do so using Template:Population WD – in the case of an infobox, like this:

| population = {{Population WD|show=value}}

| population_ref = ({{Population WD|show=year}})

Renewing my familiarity with Help:Infobox, it reminds me that "Infoboxes, like the introduction to the article, should primarily contain material that is expanded on and supported by citations to reliable sources elsewhere in the article. However, if necessary (e.g., because the article is currently incomplete), it is possible to include footnotes in infoboxes." So I think that means that ideally we wouldn't need to include a reference, but in reality given the state of some of the place articles, we probably should?

cheers, Joe D (t) 21:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Use of the current version of Template:Population WD in an infobox is not permitted, because it has |osd=no (onlysourced=no) hard-coded into the template. That goes against the RFC result linked above: Wikidata information used in infoboxes must be reliably sourced. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

A few months ago, I updated the population for about 20 articles on parishes in the old South Bedfordshire district. I came across a few issues:

• The ONS parish profiles pages is quite difficult for anyone who wants to check the source. I wrote a note about this.
• Most articles start "Xyz is a village and civil parish" which raises the question of which of them the infobox is about. I decided the best thing to do was to add "(parish)" after the count. For example, see Studham.
• There are figures for built-up areas; although there are issues with that data, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ONS built-up areas in England by population. For small parishes, the built-up population is often the same as that of the parish, but rounded, so I ignored it. But in the case of Houghton Regis someone had already updated the article with both figures, so I did not make any further change.
• Some articles already had complications because the parish boundary had changed or because the 2011 data from ONS was inaccurate for small parishes. I decided that in those cases it was not useful to keep the earlier data (for example, see [1] and [2]). I am not sure what I would have done if I had thought the earlier data was helpful.

JonH (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Not replying to anybody in particular, but WP:WDATA#Appropriate usage in articles should be carefully considered. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)