Template talk:Infobox settlement/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Infobox settlement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I put area_magnitude in Salvador, Bahia, but it has no effect... Is this right? Do I need to set another parameter?

M4c0 (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, seems the code for that is broken. It could be quite easily fixed (see the sandbox), but I would propose that we simply deprecate this function, since it's hardly ever used, and serves only to produce a totally counterintuitive link that readers are highly unlikely ever to follow knowingly.--Kotniski (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done, but Mr. Kotniski is probably right that readers are unlikely to follow the link. To increase this a little, I made it so that the "number" of square kilometers is highlighted and not the unit symbol (km2).

Example: {{infobox settlement/mi2km2|50|0|1 E8}} —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 04:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Any idea why my elevation footnote isn't working at Leeds? PamD (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to specify either |elevation_m= or |elevation_ft= for |elevation_footnotes= to be shown. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a shame: I want to use max and min, as the city ranges from 10m to 340m! PamD (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we have to introduce a couple more parameters: elevation_max_footnotes and elevation_min_footnotes. Can someone with admin privileges do this, or else temporarily unprotect the template that I or someone else can?--Kotniski (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 04:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Settlement 1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 04:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I had to make the fix shown here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tinmouth,_Vermont&diff=281611340&oldid=281610458

to be able to supply the source to a population estimate. Not sure why I had to move the source. The broken version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tinmouth,_Vermont&oldid=281610458

produced this result (links and formatting mostly omitted):

Population (2000)
- Total	567
- Density	20.0/sq mi (7.7/km2)
- Estimate (2007)	627?UNIQ2adec4,067d658ad-ref-00,000,006-QINU?

This appears to be a bug, or maybe just a limitation I didn't see documented. Thanks. 68.167.254.74 (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

It has to do with automatic formatting: If the number was larger and entered as 627000, the template would format it to show up as 627,000. For whatever reason, the <ref></ref> causes the format to go haywire. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 03:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ya, while editing Miami's infobox, I noticed that the date of the population estimate is bolded, unlike the date of the actual population. There should be some consistency to the format of those figures: either both are bolded, or not. I prefer not, in order to get "Estimate (xxxx)" back inline with their dash and data. Digirami (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell how pervasive this is, but when I tried adding a population estimate with as of date to Holland Charter Township, Michigan, these were out of alignment with everything else in the infobox. older ≠ wiser 22:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

After a minor disagreement with another user at Miami, I decided to bring the question here, since he is using the documentation for the template to support his edits. My question is this: Are flag icons not permitted in the location subdivision fields? The documentation says no, but it has been my experience that the vast majority of articles for U.S. cities have national and state flags, and I have seen a fair number in articles for cities in other countries as well. From what I can tell (looking through the many archives), this was an issue when the template looked for a specific string to determine whether to use metric or Imperial units, but that was fixed long ago by adding the unit_pref parameter. Is there any reason why they should not be used, and if so, do we need to have a bot do a run through the thousands of articles to remove the flags? If there is no reason, can the template documentation be rewritten to remove the proscription? Horologium (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be particularly concerned, so I will wait a few days and remove the prohibition from the documentation to conform with current practice. Horologium (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The values in the infobox fields are easier to use if there is no flag. It would be preferable if there was simply an additional field to activate a flag icon. -- User:Docu

I'm having a problem with this template in La Gloria, Veracruz. Can someone fix it for me? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the format you are using for the location. You can't use decimal figures; it needs to be in degree/minute/second/EW format. Try converting the decimals and using the other fields. Horologium (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You can use decimals, just leave the other ones empty or removed them. I condensed it to the minimum needed [1]. -- User:Docu

I'm not sure where the problem is; there is far too much coding there for me to be able to follow it all. However, something appears to have been messed up, such that this template sits on the left side of the page, and pushes the rest of the article down below it, rather than having the introduction alongside a right-edge template. Could someone who has a better understanding of the code have a look and see about fixing it? -Bbik^★ 06:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The Mayor of Thompson, Manitoba is established as redlink Tim Johnston (politician). There's a dab page at Tim Johnston. I'd like to link to the redlink, but if I put "Tim Johnston (politician)" in the infobox (preferably piped) it doesn't link to anything. Presumably I'd have a similar problem if we actually had an article about the mayor, but using a disambiguator. I can see in the documentation how to avoid linking to the dab page (though it's probably better than nothing), but I would like to be able to link to the disambiguated name. Can it be done? If not, could I suggest it as an improvement? I'm sure there are plenty of civic leaders whose names are disambiguated in Wikipedia, and it seems a pity if we can't link to them. I guess the solution would be to have a new field for "leaderlink" etc, where we could put the destination name if not the same as the displayed name, to in effect create a piped link. PamD (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} When the only information about the time of the place is utc offset, this template cannot show that good enough. An example would be Baghdad. If timezone = GMT +3 and leave "utc_offset" blank, it appear as "GMT +3 (UTC)" which looks like zero utc offset is equal to GMT +3. But if "utc_offset = +3" and leave "timezone" empty, the whole row disappear. --Quest for Truth (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've put some code in the /sandbox which should solve the first problem. But the timezone parameter would still be required for the row to be displayed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm deactivating this request, pending response from the OP and discussion from others. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing the problem it has been discovered that refs go haywire where the parser function {{formatnum:}} is used in the template with non-numeric data. I tested a fix in the current sandbox which can be seen in testcases. The fix essentially changes usages of formatnum to something like this:

• {{#iferror:{{#expr: 1 + {{{population_est}}}}}|{{{population_est}}}|{{formatnum:{{{population_est}}} }} }}

The block first attempts to add a number to the variable. If that fails, the variable is passed through to the template as text. If successful, then the variable is formatted. I would like to update this protected template in the sandbox, but before I begin I would appreciate it if a template expert can look at this proposed change and let me know if I am missing any gotchas. Thank you. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 08:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

| native_name = Praha
| native_name_lang = cs

... use it to make a link: {{lang-cs|[[:cs:Praha|Praha]]}}

| subdivision_name = Czech Republic

... use it to make a link: [[Country]] | [[Czech Republic]]

>Government { ... so make a link: [[Government]]

>Population { ... so make a link: [[Population]]

>Postal code { ... so make a link: [[Postal code]]

| elevation_footnotes = {{Fact}}

... this seems not to work at all!

Oashi (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} For WP:ACCESSIBILITY by the visually impaired, it should be possible to specify alt text for images generated by this template (please see WP:ALT for details). I've implemented this in the sandbox with this sandbox edit, which adds image_alt= and several similar XXX_alt= parameters to this template, one for each image it generates. I have tested the sandbox version with the test case, and have updated the documentation to describe the new parameters and behavior. Can you please install the change into the main version? Thanks.

PS. Locos epraix made several changes to the sandbox after the diff referenced above. Locos epraix's changes, as far as I can see, kept all the alt-text-related changes, so as far as alt text goes it's fine if you also include Locos epraix's changes (I haven't evaluated them). Eubulides (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Eubulides's suggested revisions are completed, but not any subsequent changes to the sandbox as it was not clear what those changes were meant to accomplish (very large diffs). Let me know if there are any problems. Plastikspork (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to make the Twin Cities section hold up to 25 twin cities? I am working on an article workover and would like to fit 23 twin cities to the infobox. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 16:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That's too many. That info should be in the body of the article or the infobox will be too cluttered. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 17:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Currently "settlement_type" is only displayed if the "name" field is included and populated. However, most articles I see use the "official_name" field rather than simply "name". This means that infoboxes which include the "settlement_type" field will not have that information displayed. Most every infobox includes the settlement_type, and more often than not "official_name" is preferred over "name". If we include the settlement_type in the infobox, we want it displayed, right? Therefore, I recommend removing the conditional display as follows.

From:

{{#if:{{both|{{{name|}}}|{{{settlement_type|}}}}}|
<tr <!-- ***** category ***** --> class="mergedtoprow">
		<td colspan="2" style="text-align:center;background:#cddeff;">—  '''{{{settlement_type|}}}'''  — </td>
	</tr>
}}

To:

 {{#if:{{{settlement_type|}}}|
<tr <!-- ***** category ***** --> class="mergedtoprow">
		<td colspan="2" style="text-align:center;background:#cddeff;">—  '''{{{settlement_type|}}}'''  — </td>
	</tr>
}}

If we still want it to be conditional, it should be conditional based on official_name rather than name. Thoughts?DCmacnut<> 17:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 19:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why in the world didn't we think of this years ago? This is clearly a significant improvement! Nyttend (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue. I've noticed this issue a couple of times, but have always taken the easy way out by using name rather than official_name. I had no clue that the fix would be this simple. Thanks for making the change, Ruslik.DCmacnut<> 20:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I know the history of this. Originally "settlement_type" was not displayed at the top of the infobox (it served only(?) as the label for total population and area, before "total_type" was introduced), and there was no "name" parameter, only "official_name". The code was changed (largely by me) to introduce the possibility of displaying the settlement type at the top (and also to define a main "name" to be displayed before the "official name", and to do various things with the total labels). However, to avoid annoying people, the change was made in such a way that it wouldn't affect the appearance of existing infoboxes based on the previous setup. This was achieved by ensuring that if "official_name" was defined and not "name", then settlement_type would not be displayed at the top. But if people are now happy with it always being displayed, then it's fine to change it.--Kotniski (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

i do expect a Help text on this template somewhere. could someone tell me wher I can find that? JaapB (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Can this be enabled, please? Octane ^{[improve me?]} 17.03.09 2121 (UTC)

In fact, I've prepared the code on another wiki, so it just needs to be plugged in:

{{#if:{{{population_demonym|}}}|
	<tr class="mergedrow">
		<td> - '''[[Demonym]]'''</td>
		<td>{{{population_demonym}}}</td>
	</tr>
}}

Yes, please enable it. Why is it currently disabled? Laurent (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Question: Where do you want this new row inserted? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest after "other name", or failing that, after the population fields.. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked in the archives and could only find support for this change. I'm rather surprised it was never enacted previously, as the discussions indicated support but always ended in just dying off. I've added it at the end of the Population section. Shereth 14:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone see any reason why {{Infobox CityIT}} cannot be merged here? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Most parameters are shared and the rest are irrelevant or unnecessary. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 17:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I have implemented the following suggestions at Template:Infobox settlement/sandbox and updated Template:Infobox settlement/testcases to show the results.

1. Please add a coordinates_footnotes parameter to allow documenting the source of coordinates used in the template. The naming of this parameter follows the style used by existing parameters such as government_footnotes, area_footnotes, elevation_footnotes, population_footnotes, etc. This is usually done for fields where the <ref> cannot be directly appended to the data, as is the case with the coordinates. This change would be very helpful when attempting to maintain existing references while eliminating duplicate sets of coordinates within an article.
2. Please remove "font-size: smaller;" from the style used on the coordinates. The default font size is small enough to fit and easier to read, plus it looks better when using a footnote.
3. Please move the table row for footnotes to the bottom of the infobox, below the row containing website. This is a standard format used by most infoboxes.

The changes required can be found in this diff and implemented by copying that sandbox code. -- Zyxw (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a convention for how this infobox could include a U.S. settlement's congressional district? Thanks. 67.101.6.42 (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Use "subdivision_type/subdivision_name." You can use them up to 7 times through subdivision_type6/subdivision_name6. The first three are reserved for Country, State, County, and the fourth is usually used if there is a sub-county government, such as a civil township. Just add Congressional district as the type and the district number as the name, and use the appropriate number 3, 4, 5, or 6 (depending on how many instances of the field are already used. I have an example posted here. Hope that helps.DCmacnut<>

Thanks. 67.100.127.135 (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC).

In the documentation section Template:Infobox settlement#Population, Demographics, the description of the population_total parameter is Actual population (see below for estimates) and similarly, population_as_of has The year for the population total (usually a census year). Below, are the parameters population_est and pop_est_as_of. The example given at the end however, uses the 2008 population estimate in the population_total parameter. Is this a good example to illustrate usage? If there are separate parameters to distinguish between an actual census and population estimates, shouldn't the example follow suit?

On a side note, the pop_est_as_of parameter doesn't format very well. For example, in this revision, there the estimate year causes a bad line break that makes it look as though the estimate is a heading for the Urban and Metro figures that follow, rather than for the estimate, which is on the preceding line. older ≠ wiser 12:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if there is any way to tell how many instances of the template actually use the population_est parameter, as it seems to be rather underutilized. I did a real quick random survey of 10 cities in metro areas, assuming these to be among the most "updated" cities in the United States, and not one of them used population_est (one did have a note stating it was an estimte). It is difficult for me to speak of the situation outside the US, but within, the problem is complicated by the fact that for most intents and purposes, the annual Census estimates are treated as de facto official populations. They are used, for example, by federal, state and local governments for the purpose of allocating certain funds. The fact that governments at all levels use these figures gives them a large amount of currency as being "official". This is compounded by the fact that the parameter "population_total" is described as being "Actual", the term carrying with it a connotation of being current, when the 2000 Census figures are far from current and "actual". Even changing the template documentation is unlikely to result in any kind of visible change in how templates are used; the behavior of treating estimates as being "official" figures is rather deeply rooted, as well as having been common practice for several years. I am uncertain what can or should be done about it. Shereth 14:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)