This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Infobox UK place. 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.
Latest comment: 10 years ago26 comments8 people in discussion
The reason I'm requesting this is because some images have standard size text, whilst others have small text. There is a situation of non-standard formatting across many UK articles. I would prefer the use of small text to be hard-coded into the template (i.e. able to overwrite any other markup which the editor might add to the section), as small text is the standard across the rest of Wikipedia, in particular with the use of the "Infobox settlement" template, and presents itself better, for this use. I have found that the present situation compromises rapid editing, as well as being outside of consensus for village, town and city infoboxes across the rest of the world. Indeed, London has small text for the infobox image caption, and I trust that this is the benchmark for Britain. I've already spoken with Keith D and Redrose64 about this situation, at least one of whom has pointed out that small text is not good for accessibility and that this is slowly being reverted to standard size text. I regard this as a point of contention, at least until the British geographic section of the encyclopedia is fully developed, as the present situation reduces accessibility, i.e. ease of editing, for all international editors of a substantially incomplete encyclopedia. Indeed, the present situation highlights a somewhat parochial approach to what is an international encyclopedia. I would most like to hear of any other opinions on this matter. Regards, EP111 (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Keith D, does one wish to have an easily-readable encyclopedia with less to read in it? This is the situation which we have, on this matter, until this problem is solved, one text size or another. I'm reluctant to add any captions to any UK location infoboxes until it's solved. I fail to see why the reader cannot implement a larger text size from their own browser, rather than make Wikipedia comply at the server level. Does the browser of the person, requiring accessibility, not have a "view > zoom in" tool, or something similar? You're implementing more accessibility for a very, very small and uninformed section of the readership, when other browser-based options are taken into consideration, and this makes things a lot more difficult for everyone else. Regards, EP111 (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
This is how the caption would appear if it did not have the inbuilt <small>...</small>
See my examples at right. The following font size figures are partially dependent upon my setup, which is Windows XP SP3, Firefox 27.0.1, Monobook skin; but there is nothing else that might affect the font size. In this setup, the normal text size outside of infoboxes is 12.7px, that is to say, this size.
The default size of the caption of {{Infobox UK place}} (middle row of upper box) is 11.4333px, that is to say, this size; whereas if <small>...</small> is also used (lower row), the size is 9.48333px, that is to say, this size.
By comparison, the default size of the caption of {{Infobox settlement}} (middle row of lower box) is 9.48333px, that is to say, this size - this includes a <small>...</small> which is inherent to the infobox as it is presently set up; but if that <small>...</small> could be omitted (lower row), the size would be 11.4333px, that is to say, this size.
Now 11.4333 px is 90.03% of 12.7 px, and 9.48333 px is 74.67% of 12.7 px.Both MOS:ACCESS#Text and WP:FONTSIZE state "Avoid using smaller font sizes in elements that already use a smaller font size, such as infoboxes, navboxes and reference sections. In no case should the resulting font size drop below 85% of the page fontsize (or 11px)." If it is desired to reduce the caption's font size from its current size, this should be done by adjusting the internal styling of the {{Infobox UK place}} template, in such a manner that the 85% lower limit is not breached. Clearly <small>...</small>does cause it to breach that limit, and so its use in image captions within this infobox is undesirable; I would further say that a proposal should be made to remove it from {{Infobox settlement}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Redrose64, I'm in agreement with this statement: "If it is desired to reduce the caption's font size from its current size, this should be done by adjusting the internal styling of the UK Place Infobox template, in such a manner that the 85% lower limit is not breached." I have to maintain that small text is the preferable format, overall, for the outward appearance of the caption. I would like it so that the reader sees the text as small, in its default state to read, though it won't necessarily be the default state to the infobox or editor. Furthermore, the removal of small text has not been implemented in other parts of the UK Place Infobox, such as the map marker and the list of places, at the bottom of the infobox. I'd therefore advise that it would be preferable to maintain a similar outward appearance to the Settlement Infobox, at least until further notice, as all large text within the infobox, from the point of view of the reader, as Keith D proposes, is not a fully-developed idea. Regards, EP111 (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Why do we need to have small fonts for a caption in an infobox at all? We do not use small fonts for other captions in articles so why do we have it for specific infoboxes. We should be making things accessible and consistent by getting rid of the use of small for the caption. The map marker is even more of an accessibility issue as it is small and italics but that is outside the control of the infobox and needs looking at separately from the template. Keith D (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Keith, your question is an interesting one. I expect that it's a matter of not just style and presentation, but also more words in a smaller space. After all, it is an infobox and not a full page. Though, with regards to consistency, I see it from the opposite point of view, which is in agreement with the majority, as it stands. That is, the vast majority of places around the world use small text when one reads the infobox image captions. EP111 (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Redrose64, n.b. I've highlighted the above point of agreement on the basis that any accidental implementation of "double small" text, by an editor, is automatically overwritten, within the template code, to merely be small text. Regards, EP111 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a captionKeith D said "We do not use small fonts for other captions in articles" but actually we do when we put captions on thumbnail images. See right. -- Dr Greg talk 21:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The font size of a caption in a thumb image is 11.2167 px, that is to say, this size, which is very slightly smaller than the font size of a caption in an infobox image. Applying the same calculations as previously, it works out at 88.32% of 12.7 px - still above 85%. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
@EP111: Not sure what you mean by 'any accidental implementation of "double small" text, by an editor, is automatically overwritten, within the template code, to merely be small text'. If at London, somebody were to use
the template would not be aware of that <small>...</small>, and so the font size would be further reduced from 9.48333 px - specifically, to 8.48333 px, that is to say, this size, which is so small as to be unreadable. It works out at 66.8% of 12.7 px - and any edit that caused such a font size should be reverted on sight. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Redrose64, all I know is that something isn't running as smoothly as it should, within the UK Places Infobox template. Certainly, not working in harmony with the more widely-used Settlement Infobox. This difference between the two infobox formats has created a highly unnecessary degree of confusion. I would be grateful if a suitable template editor could repair this situation, until the new proposed designs of both infoboxes have been properly coded and are agreeable to all parties. In particular, with regards to standard formatting between Infobox Settlement and Infobox UK Place. I've been told not to use small markup within the UK Place Infobox as it is not acceptable for accessibility, which is a redundant argument. Yet, without it, the text does not display as small. N.b. I'm running Firefox 28 on Windows 7, both at default settings. Regards, EP111 (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
There is no consensus so far to change the formatting within this template so until there is we should not be demanding changes to the code of the template. Keith D (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
If it's any encouragement for the powers that be to get a move on, the sooner the problem is solved, the sooner I'll rip right through the lot of it and get the entire country captioned. I've been doing 5000 edits a week, for the last month or more, so I don't see why I couldn't manage that, for all of the UK articles. I probably work in a slightly different way to most editors (I treat it as a dead-headed production line), which may be why I picked up on the problem. As far as I'm concerned, consistency is a great aid to an extremely fast workflow. EP111 (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Convenience break
I'm a rather older than the average reader, so my eyesight isn't what it used to be and the guidance we have on text size is intended to cater for folks like me. I have my monitor size and browser zoom set so that the default 12.8px text size is comfortable to read while the page size is large enough that I don't have to scroll any more often than necessary. The result is that I can read 11px text with a little effort, but anything below that tends to blur towards illegibility: my reading speed slows and misreading words increases dramatically. If I change the zoom on my browser to read the smaller text, I often lose my place in the article. Regularly changing zoom level is a real hindrance to reading - try if you need to be convinced. In short, there is a genuine accessibility problem with trying to cram too many words into too little space. I have a strong preference for captions to be at normal size. --RexxS (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
@EP111: Things are not running as smoothly as it should, within the UK Places Infobox template because some articles have the caption enclosed in <small>...</small>, where others don't. That is itself an inconsistency which must be addressed, regardless of the actual font size that is yielded. Once all the <small>...</small> have been removed from the articles, the next thing to do is to make {{Infobox UK place}} and {{Infobox settlement}} mutually consistent. The principal inconsistency between these is that {{Infobox settlement}} internally adds a <small>...</small> to all captions, and {{Infobox UK place}} doesn't. If it were not for that <small>...</small> markup, all the captions in both infoboxes would be the same size as the bulk of the infobox text. Then we can look at the font size which is used for the bulk of readers by default, and perhaps adjusting it - again by tweaking the code that is internal to the infobox. Article-by-article changes like this are a bad idea because it takes us back to the inconsistency that I mentioned in my first two sentences of this post. They're also a bad idea because of the sheer bulk of work that needs to be done. Even if we did alter every single article to use <small>...</small>, somebody creating a new article might not know to do that, and could leave it off - and we're inconsistent again.
If you feel that the image caption is too large for yourself, we can look at creating a new class - let's call it ibximagecaption for now - and adding a <span class=ibximagecaption>...</span> around the caption, internally to both infoboxes. That would mean that you could add some styling to Special:MyPage/common.css that would alter the size of image captions of both these infoboxes for you personally, without inconveniencing others. Something like
"the next thing to do is to make {{Infobox UK place}} and {{Infobox settlement}} mutually consistent" Indeed; a good way to do that would be to make the former a wrapper of the latter. Regarding "Once all the <small>...</small> have been removed from the articles", a bot could do that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits13:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Redrose64, see my response to RexxS, below. Wikipedia already has a tool to switch off small text. Enforcing an updated style which would use no small text at all for the default presentation, to all of the infoboxes of populated places, is completely unnecessary and essentially an irrelevance, as the tool already exists to deal with it. I think I've finished, for now, on this matter. Regards, EP111 (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
That's an appalling attitude. Any registered editor can alter their interface via CSS as well as using so-called "tools". However we're not writing this encyclopedia for the editors, but for the readers who don't have that facility and simply ignoring their accessibility needs is not an option. Nothing exists to "deal with" small text for the vast majority of visitors and no editor should be taking an "I'm alright, Jack" attitude to accessibility. Switching off small text is definitely necessary and very relevant to meeting the needs of our users. Let's take the first step by switching off small text in infoboxes as a matter of course. --RexxS (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@RexxS: It seems that I'm not being allowed to finish. Please refrain from insulting me as appalling, that's extremely upsetting. I'm wishing to find a more workable solution than the one which is, so far, in operation. Though, clearly, any development of the idea isn't wanted, and neither am I. Keith D and yourself have dismissed both me and it. That is along with, I expect, any potential to convert that script into a browser-based plugin for unregistered users. I have no wish to add anything more to Wikipedia, until an apology is forthcoming. Goodbye. EP111 (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello RexxS, aside from the possibility of using a view zoom tool in your browser, I've noticed that Wikipedia already has a tool to switch off small text. This can be found from your list, at the top of the page, at "Preferences > Gadgets > Appearance" Which already has the option to disable smaller font sizes of elements such as Infoboxes, Navboxes and Reference lists. Regards, EP111 (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
That is only useful for users who are logged in, most readers are anonymous and do not have this option available to them. We should be catering for them as well, removing small text from the infoboxes is a start. Keith D (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
@EP111: The vast majority of all page views are by from unregistered visitors and they are the people we are writing this encyclopedia for. Toys like "a tool to switch off small text" simply serve to mask the problem from the very people who need to be aware of the problems - the editors who cause them. I try to keep my interface as near to 'standard' as I can, so that I can see the accessibility problems that our visitors experience. --RexxS (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Why is there even any question about this? Wikipedia exists for the people who read it, not for the people who edit it. The idea that we should make decisions about its appearance and readability based on options which are available only to the tiny minority of people who have registered accounts is crazy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
indeed, it would be better to make a script that changes the appearance of captions for those who are logged in and want very small text captions. the default should be readable. Frietjes (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
After a few days of contemplation, I suppose that I am allowed to change my mind. I can accept others' wishes. Though, it's not without concern for a script which has already been developed. A script which could, rapidly, be ported as a browser addon, even with the minor tweak of allowing heading-sized text as standard (not just merely standard-sized text as standard) and, of course, no cross-page scrolling. I accept being overruled by the majority, commenting here. Though, I am concerned about the method, being presented in opposition to my own, as perhaps not the one which is most favourable to non-registered visually impaired users. Indeed, I have various visual impairments of my own, though not ones which might be relevant to this discussion. I may maintain that the eventual total eradication of small text, from the default presentation of Wikipedia, as is being suggested by others, to be against the possible principle that all markup is surely allowed for the primary presentation. That is, every type of Wiki markup is the default. EP111 (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The lost map of Wales!
Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion
Hi all; I've attempted to copy the templates pertaining to this one on the Breton wiki, here, but the map of Wales doesn't appear. Can some one help please? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Next one missing is Module:Arguments. Tip: click the "edit" tab for the whole page, don't change anything and go right to the bottom. There should be an entry "Patromoù implijet war ar bajenn-mañ :", "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):" or "Defnyddir y nodiadau hyn ar y dudalen hon:" (depending upon your language setting). If this has a right-pointing triangle to its left, click that. This should give a list of links - most will be blue, but some may be red. It's the red ones that you need to hunt down. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Well done! The uk map is now visible. Any suggestions how that can be changed to the map of Wales? Or am I pushing too hard?! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Just to explain, there were 94 instances of Ynys Môn listed for action in the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links project and each article needed disambiguation on four counts, two unitary and two parliamentary. I'm sorry if this has disrupted the template but disambiguation is an important process. I was aiming for consistency with Ynys Môn where it is used in an article. GnGn (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This shouldn't be necessary - Ynys Môn ought to be a redirect to Anglesey (as primary topic for the term is the unitary authority). However, the template ought to be fixed anyway. With regards to the edits like [1] the constituency links should be piped to hide the disambiguation, its redundant to say UK Parliament Ynys Môn (UK Parliament constituency)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilfanion (talk • contribs) 08:42, 8 April 2014
@Gnorman Gnome: The point by Twiceuponatime is valid: changing |unitary_wales= [[Anglesey]] to |unitary_wales= [[Anglesey|Ynys Môn]] will have broken the transclusions, since Template:Infobox UK place/local is set up to recognise two values: [[Anglesey]] and [[Isle of Anglesey]] (the latter being added with this edit). It shouldn't be necessary either, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, not Wicipedia Cymraeg, so place names should primarily be in English.
Neither [[Ynys Môn]] nor [[Anglesey|Ynys Môn]] have ever been coded for in Template:Infobox UK place/local, so altering articles from |unitary_wales=[[Ynys Môn]] to |unitary_wales=[[Anglesey|Ynys Môn]], although a valid disambiguation, will not have made any difference to the transclusions. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The difficulty is consistency within the article as the creator has used Ynys Môn within the narrative (this also needing DAB) and so that should be reflected in the infobox without upsetting any transclusions. The solution must be to update the template to allow for use of Ynys Môn regardless of the language difference. GnGn (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The guideline you quoted at WT:WALES isn't entirely clear but I think its salient points are these two:
(a) "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always".
(b) "The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article, unless there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context".
I would interpret that as saying we in the English WP should use Anglesey throughout all these articles and not Ynys Môn. BUT. And it's a biggish but: the two parliamentary constituencies are called Ynys Môn. It would seem, then, that unitary should be Anglesey, place name in the narrative should be Anglesey, and the two parliamentary variables should be Ynys Môn. How do we take it forward? I think we should wait to see if a WT:WALES view is forthcoming. GnGn (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
As a "test case" in the meantime, I've amended Trecastell so that its unitary and narrative variables have [[Anglesey]] while its parliamentary variables pipe to Ynys Môn. Is that the correct model? Thanks. GnGn (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This has restored all the local maps and piped all constituency links. The articles are bare stubs, of course, and several of them are already picking up "orphan" and "no references" banners. GnGn (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Scottish Lord Provosts
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Would appreciate Wikipedians comments about adding a field recognising the special status of Lord Provosts in Scotland. The current 'lieutenancy_area_scotland' doesn't give first-hand information for users when they read the current infobox. Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Dundee are not, in reality, lieutenancy areas, and what would be the position of Lord Lieutenent of these areas is, in fact, the position of Lord Provost. FelisRead(talk) 11:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
"Website"
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The guidelines require "Council website for place (specifically)", but the text simply shows "Website".
This is misleading for many smaller settlements, where the council website (if there is one) is merely concerned with the governance of the town/village - and given the few powers that are devolved to town/parish councils, this is often a fairly small subject matter. (I write as a town councillor!) Meanwhile, the town/village may have its own community website which gives a wider and more informative representation of the settlement.
I would therefore suggest that the infobox text is changed from "Website" to "Council website".
