Template talk:County

Template:Cheshire is based on this template.

There is also a Cheshire portal that is being started and we would like to add a link to the portal to the Cheshire template. This has been done (see Template:Cheshire), but I do not think it looks great, and looks worse on actual pages (e.g. Northwich). A better way to do it would be to change this template to allow a new 'field' of Portal. I would suggest it has a value of the associated portal's name. This would then generate a link to the portal within the template, perhaps within the 'header', using portal.svg ()?

Template:Cornwall, not based on this template, have done something similar and this kind of look is what I would like to achieve within this template.

I would have a crack at it myself, but as it affects a much wider audience outside Cheshire, I feel it needs to be discussed first.

Opinions anyone?  Pixie2000 (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good suggestion, well worthy of discussion. I would support the addition of such a field.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the county template cannot be redesigned to look like the Cornwall one. The addition of a "Topics" list seems like a good idea. -- Phildav76 11:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated this by adding a portal variable, pt. It is now used in Template:Cheshire. If anyone wants to improve the look, then please do have a crack!!  Pixie2000 (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to re-position it, or put it at the end, and so on, but got mixed up, and so put it back roughly where it was before I tried to edit it.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several counties have their own flags and the option to include them on the template would be useful. Is it possible to add a field that will display the flag in a similar way to Template:Cornwall? Timrollpickering 16:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any objection to me changing "Cities and towns" to "Major settlements"? --Jza84 |  Talk  02:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this template list cities & towns separately instead of mixed in a single section. Why? Because of the way bold is used to highlight cities. First: this usage isn't explained. Second: it interferes with the way that the article name is automatically emboldened when the template is included in an article. (However a change like this will cause backward compatibility issues with all existing uses of this template.) For the same reason I'd like "List of civil parishes in {{{countyname}}}" not to be bold either. I'd also be happy to go along with Jza84's suggestion provided all cities are de-emphasised. --Dr Greg (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit protected}} The doc needs to be moved to the doc subpage. --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 05:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Please add an Adr microformat to this template, by changing:

|title  = [[Ceremonial counties of England|Ceremonial county]] of [[{{{countyname}}}]] 

to:

|title  = [[Ceremonial counties of England|Ceremonial county]] of <span class="adr"><span class="region">[[{{{countyname}}}]]</span></span> 

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Jza84 |  Talk  00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back in August I reaised the issue of Canals in this template at WP:UKGEO getting only 1 responce and they felt that a separate section should be used. I therefore propose to add a cl section to cover canals after the rivers section unless there is any objections. Keith D (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no clear guidance on the criteria for inclusion in the major settlements line of the template. It can't be as simple as cities and towns, the original purpose of the line, because in many cases you can have villages (e.g. Cheddar) which are much larger than neighbouring towns (e.g. Axbridge). I ask because I see that 195.195.247.144 (talk · contribs) seems to be making a number of rather arbitrary changes to counties which use this template - some of which I disagree with and have therefore reverted. If there were clearer guidance then usage would be more consistent. My own suggestion for inclusion would be settlements with more than 5,000 people. What do others think? --Simple Bob (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although it was me who made the change from towns and cities to major settlements, I was and still am aware that this was going to problematic at some point. However, I do believe "major settlements" was more befitting, neutral and useful for the purposes of the template.

I'd rather not put a population count on a major settlement though. In the major connurbations, a suburb can have twice/three times that (5,000) amount of residents. I'd much rather move towards a system of consensus on a template-by-template basis. Local WikiProjects (or in their absence, the Wikipedia:WikiProject England) should be able to provide their own framework and knowledge as to what is and what isn't a major settlement of a county. This would have the benefit of allowing settlements of 4,999 people in (probably useful for rural Cumbria for example) as well as the consent of participants. --Jza84 |  Talk  17:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I've been bold and added an additional field for Statutory City Regions. They are only being used on a trial basis for the Manchester City Region and Leeds City Region, but others are likely to follow. The field can be editted out at any time - just give me a nudge if any feels there are concerns with consensus (though I hope I've judged it right that this is a small and progressive change only). --Jza84 |  Talk  16:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In counties where the List of civil parishes in... has been upgraded (all the metropolitan counties plus Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Cornwall, Cumbria and Lancashire), the pages are no longer purely a list. In addition, the criteria globally have changed, and "lists" are no longer required to be titled List of... Consequently, those pages have been moved to Civil parishes in..., which causes problems with the bold highlight on this template.

In order to solve this, do we:

• (1) Change the parameters to highlight either List of civil parishes in... or Civil parishes in...;
• (2) Retitle all the pages, including those not yet upgraded, and change the parameters on this template;
• (3) Revert the changes already made, until all the lists can be retitled together, and then change the parameters on this template;
• (4) Adopt the suggestion of Dr Greg three years ago (above) and do away for the bold highlight altogether.

Skinsmoke (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I've improved this template's emitted (microformat) metadata. Please apply the changes in the Sandbox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I also moved Template:County/Sandbox to Template:County/sandbox because various templates - such as {{documentation}} and the {{Editprotected}} above - expect a lowercase "s" when generating links (see here). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch; and thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add the text "in England" (or perhaps using a coma, as ", England") after "Ceremonial county of Foo". The markup should be in <span class="country-name">[[England]]</span> or , <span class="country-name">[[England]]</span>, respectively.

Also, what about moving the "List of civil parishes in Warwickshire" to |below=, and dropping the words "See also"? If that's not done, perhaps we should drop the word "Major" from "Major settlements". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit protected}} Addition. I wonder if it may be possible to insert an extra parameter please of |Flag= ? is what I would like to be able to insert and other users may also have flags of counties to insert. Thanks very much in advance. Adam37 (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam37 (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: This seems like a reasonable request, but we need some actual code before we can update the template. The admins who patrol protected edit requests are not (usually) coders for hire. :) Could you work up a version in the template sandbox? If you need any help with the coding you could try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this to the sandbox. Please apply the changes. Calhoun ^talk 21:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't the flagicon be at the start of the title, to avoid visual disruption of the text? Frietjes (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Closedmouth (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to find this guideline or even ask the question . . . In USA county descriptions, the adjacent counties often are listed. So, in a series of rectangular counties (as found in portions of West Central Texas), is contact at a mutual corner considered "adjacent"? (Or, is Colorado "adjacent" to Arizona?) I'm not an attorney but think in oil & gas land law, such point contact does qualify for "contiguous." Casey (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how it should work in the USA, but this is a UK county template, and there are no examples of counties meeting at a single point only (although Rutland/Cambridgeshire/Lincolnshire/Northamptonshire is blisteringly close to this). Bazonka (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've applied a standard inclusion criteria to all of the county templates. This is:

• All towns and cities, whatever their size.
• All villages with a population of 10,000 or more.

This seems to give a good balance of places that are included, and most of the templates didn't need to change much. The only areas where it gets a bit questionable are large suburbs of larger places, e.g. should Didsbury be listed separately from Manchester? (Apologies for not discussing this here previously, but I've only just discovered that this talk page exists.) Bazonka (talk) 10:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me :) WaggersTALK 13:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a "one size fits all"-approach. There are also counties in other countries which can be stripped bare under this proposal. The Banner talk 10:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This template is only used for English counties. Bazonka (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point there. But why the arbitrary cut off point of 10.000 inhabitants? The Banner talk 11:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not 10,000? We had to choose something, and 10k seemed like a reasonable balanced value that didn't introduce too many tiny places or exclude too many big ones. It's also a nice round figure that's easy to work with. Having different values for different counties doesn't seem like a workable approach. Bazonka (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not so that the templates got overly long. So a cut off point to reduce the length of the template is not an issue. The Banner talk 11:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the criteria is intended to provide a firm definition to what we mean by "major", which should stop good-faith editors from including every little village that they feel like - or to be more precise, it gives us justification for removing these villages if they do get added. The length of the template isn't a consideration (See Template:Kent and Template:Rutland for examples of long and short ones - the size of the template kind of reflects the size and population of the counties). Bazonka (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation templates should aid navigation. What you do is prevent just that. And based on a completely random criterium rthat was hardly discussed. I suggest that you start a RFC to get a wider community discussion over the criteria. The Banner talk 12:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that they prevent navigation. I'm happy with them as they are, but if you want to start an RFC then go for it. Bazonka (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you are the one that invented and implemented the criteria, it will be your "job" to garner support for it. The Banner talk 12:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I followed WP:BOLD, and my approach has been discussed at Template_talk:Cheshire and here, and I have made references to those discussions several times. I have been completely open about this approach and people have been given ample opportunity to disagree with it, but until now, no-one has quibbled. That is all the support that it needed. Now, you're the one who wants to change the situation that has been settled for several years, so surely it's your place to raise the RFC or whatever. I'll certainly be taking no action, because as far as I'm concerned, nothing needs to change. Bazonka (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem upset over my opposition to your rules. That is why I asked on other venue for more input. The Banner talk 13:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miffed would be a better word than upset. I don't really understand your opposition to something that has worked well for years, but I'm quite happy for you to take the discussion elsewhere. Bazonka (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point, and my support above was based on this being for UK counties. I can't support it on a global basis, both for the reason @The Banner gives and due to the fact that different countries have different definitions for "towns and cities". WaggersTALK 10:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd happily accept different inclusion criteria to be used on this template for counties in different countries, although as far as I can tell it is only used on English counties (which is what it was intended for). We do need some sort of criteria for England though, unless we want to go back to the chaos that we used to have. Bazonka (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with 10,000; I'd also be happy to exclude villages altogether. They'll still be included on district-level navboxes (e.g. {{Winchester}}) but don't seem necessary on a county navbox. WaggersTALK 11:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't strongly disagree, but some villages are huge - much bigger than some of the towns, so omitting them may seem strange, and could result in well-meaning editors constantly putting them back. There are also a few situations where it's unclear whether a settlement is actually a town or a village (articles are contradictory or ambiguous, and no firm evidence can be found elsewhere), but if they're over 10k population then it doesn't matter. Bazonka (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have informed two related project about this discussion. Hopefully we get a wider audience now. The Banner talk 12:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:The Banner for notifying this discussion at WP:UKGEO. Question for User:Bazonka — is your proposal in response to a fundamental and widespread problem over disputed additions/removals of places listed as "major settlements" in the county infoboxes? Rupples (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Before the criteria were developed, the different county templates contained an inconsistent mixture of large and small settlements. My interest in this started at Template:Cheshire, where there were disagreements over whether certain large villages should be included or not. What was missing was a proper definition of what we meant by "major settlement", so I developed the criteria, which I explained at Template Talk:Cheshire. Over time I applied the criteria to other county templates, and I would reference the discussion on the Cheshire page, and later I explained the situation here. In the few years since the inclusion criteria have been in place, the templates have been more stable, with no edit warring, and they are all consistent with one another. In hindsight I probably should have discussed the development of the criteria more widely, but I was being open in what I was doing and there was no opposition. However, despite this, I do believe that the criteria are now fit for purpose, and they've certainly improved the content of the templates. Bazonka (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the comprehensive explanation. Not objecting as such but there could be a problem with the chosen 10,000 population figure being disputed. What population data is being used? We have the 10 year national census and ONS yearly estimates, maybe others. Rupples (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases it wont matter, but for when it does I suggest using either the most up-to-date reliable figures or including if the most recent figures in any reliable set put it at or above 10k. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply using whatever figure was in the corresponding Wikipedia article, which would usually have come from the latest census. Bazonka (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a sensible and easily verifiable way of doing it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you're saying works for rural areas - not so sure about urban conurbations. Many population figures in Wikipedia articles are based on wards, which by their nature are an attempt to equalise populations for electoral voting. There's inconsistency in Template:West Midlands County. Take subdivisions of Birmingham - I guess all Birmingham wards have populations in excess of 10,000. Edgbaston is included in the West Midlands template as a major settlement but not neighbouring Harborne. My judgment of commonsense would be to include Birmingham but none of its suburbs; all the wards being confined to Template:Areas of Birmingham. Then again, the West Midlands template would have numerous linked articles to places in Sandwell and Dudley and only one for Birmingham. Rupples (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we just need to ask three questions:

1. Is the given place a settlement in its own right (according to sources used in the article)?
2. Do reliable population figures for the place exist?
3. According to the most recent population figures cited in the article does it have a population of 10k or greater?

If the answer to all three is "yes" then include it on the template, if the answer to any of them is "no" then don't. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupples I totally agree - see my very first (2 year old) comment in this discussion.

@Thryduulf Another question to ask is: is the place a town or city? If so, its population is irrelevant. Bazonka (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought population was the only criteria? Although looking at Template:Somerset I see it lists Axbridge (population in 2011: 2,057) because it is legally a town. Thryduulf (talk) 06:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf See the first post in this thread. Bazonka (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:The Banner's opposition is twofold. Firstly, that I developed a standard without discussion, and secondly that I picked an arbitrary 10k population cut-off limit for villages. On the first point, I accept that I could have communicated my thoughts more widely, but they certainly weren't kept secret, and I was open to suggestions - the fact that no-one voiced any disagreement doesn't mean that they weren't given the opportunity to do so. On the second point, any value that I chose would have been arbitrary. 10k seemed like a perfectly adequate medium between including too many tiny places and excluding too many large ones. Maybe I could've gone with 7685 or 12942, but 10k seemed like a more sensible figure. Bazonka (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My third point - that you ignore again - is that a county navigation template should aid navigation between relevant subjects. Not hide subjects based on an arbitrary cut off point. Why not all villages that have an article? Why not relevant regions within a county? The Banner talk 15:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is anything other than aiding navigation between relevant subjects. The relevant subjects are "major settlements" and 10k population seems to me like a good, workable definition of that. Villages are not "major settlements" and are included on lower-level navigation templates, e.g. Template:Sedgemoor. Expanding the "Unitary authorities" section to become "Districts and unitary authorities" would seem to be a useful change, but as districts, UAs and other regions are not settlements (major or otherwise) that is not relevant to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section is entitled "Major settlements". Why would you want to include all the minor villages in that? What you're implying is that we should open up the scope of the section to allow any places to be listed, which really wouldn't help. Bazonka (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that 10.000 inhabitants is a "major settlement"? For instance from the UK Statistics Office or the likes? We follow the common use and do not invent things, as far as I know. The Banner talk 23:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no definition from the ONS or anyone else, which is exactly why we had to develop our own. Not doing so would just perpetuate the chaos. Bazonka (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it is just your personal preference enforced on the community. The Banner talk 11:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner, that really isn't what happened. I suggest you read WP:BOLD, and remember that everything that I did was explained on talk pages. Since you seem to have nothing constructive to add, I think this discussion is over. Bazonka (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was already quite BOLD by opposing your hardly discussed invention. So what I did was use the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The Banner talk 23:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner This was not a "hardly discussed invention". This was a decision that was very (although not quite perfectly) transparently made and which has multiple years of (mostly silent) consensus behind it. Since that time you are the only person who has expressed that they have any problems with the threshold. All that indicates that Bazonka's bold action is endorsed by the community and your objections are not. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some settlements in the county templates are in bold text, but this is done inconsistently. In some counties, only the cities are bold, and in others it seems to be the major settlement in each district. There's no explanatory text. In my opinion it should just be cities (or nothing). What do others think? Bazonka (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My preference (in any navbox) is not to embolden anything, simply because, when transcluded in an article, the name of the article (within the navbox) is automatically emboldened, so any additional bold text detracts from that. In any case, there's no point in highlighting some items unless it is clear to the reader why they are highlighted. -- Dr Greg  talk  13:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about having cities in bold italics, which would be distinct from the bolding applied when transcluding from an article? This would also need the heading of Major Settlements to be appended with "(cities in bold italics)" or similar. I guess this could be omitted from counties without cities. Bazonka (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting this after 2 years... I've changed my mind about bold italics - I think just italics will work. I've added text to the template, and I'll now go through all of the county templates to remove bolding, and to add italics where required. If anyone knows how to make the text about italics only appear when cities are present, then that'll be great! Bazonka (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]