Template talk:Infobox New Zealand suburb

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template width[edit]

Hello all - I have created a new Template:Infobox New Zealand suburbs. Started out as an Auckland project, but I changed it so it can be easily used on various cities all over NZ. Has a lot of (optional) fields beyond what the previous Auckland tables used. I am also still tweaking it a little, but I think its pretty good. Things still to do (likely tomorrow):

  • Add support for wards (even if all they seem to be used in is elections)
  • Try to find a way to pipe links (so that Devonport, New Zealand can be piped to Devonport within the infobox
  • Try to find a way to allow brackets around non-suburb 'surrounded by's - for this and the previous change I may end up having to undo the auto-wikilinking for these fields. Changes done.

So far, I have only used the template on a very few test cases (Auckland CBD, Onehunga, New Zealand for example). Once the above is fixed, I will over the coming days update all the other Auckland suburbs and then maybe other cities in NZ as well. Any comments, suggestions, before I start to do so? Cheers Ingolfson (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance it looks good - it'll well replace the "temporary" infobox I added to suburb articles over two years ago! Grutness...wha? 20:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have also now fixed the above things. Ingolfson (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could the template be made narrower? I hate pages where wide content on the right reduces the lead to one word per line. dramatic (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, one word? Surely you are exaggerating? If I narrowed it, content wrapping into more than one line would be common for some fields, making the template look a bit cluttered in my opinion. Also, the template is currently 300px, with the old table being around 295px, so its not exactly a massive change. New Zealand railway stations template is also the same width as the new suburb template. As you can see, I'm hesitant to change the width... Ingolfson (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I kid you not. I have inserted linebreaks exactly as they occur for me.

Onehunga
is a suburb
of Auckland
City, New
Zealand,
and also
the
location of
the Port of
Onehunga,
the city's
small port
on the
Manukau
Harbour. It
(and so on until Maungakiekie doesn't fit so there is a long gap before the text can continue with that beneath the infobox.

Note that my browser is cset to open pages at a width which gives optimum sentence lengths on most websites. I can drag the frame wider, but it is a nuisance to have to do so. My font size is enlarged slighly in my WP user stylesheet, but I won't be alone in that. dramatic (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, dramatic, I still feel that since the page displays readably at a window sized only ~ 640 px wide (just checked - and most computers have much higher resolutions today), and due to the fact that many, many other templates on Wikipedia are similar width (such as the mountain template, which is even wider) the problem is more on your side - maybe reduce text size or set a larger window size? Again, I note the existing suburb tables at 295px width. I may check how a 280px width would work for the template, but please give me a day or two. BTW: How do K2 and Onehunga Branch display for you? Ingolfson (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how does say Shire of Chiltern look? (That's an Australian one using a similarish template). Orderinchaos 13:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the examples people asked me to compare are narrower than the NZ suburbs template on Onehunga:

(all measurements taken with Iconico Screen Calipers) If the left and right margins of the photographs were eliminated - so the side of the photo aligns with the blue header bars - it would be much better. Note that not all templates exhibit the difference between browsers. Since this discussion is getting long, should we move it to the template's talk page? (I don't know how to transfer it properly). dramatic (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then either your browser or the template syntax has a problem, because the template clearly displays as 300px wide on my IE (V6, admittedly, but still). I was never intending to have it at more than 300px width. Therefore, I doubt that a simple "width" change on the template side will change anything (though in fact, that's a good thing in a way, because it means that we may be able to solve this eventually without me having to shrink the template in my view...) Ingolfson (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I have two further data points (from Onehunga):

  • Firefox 2.0.0.12 on 1280x1024: 300px - looks as you probably intended it with the photo almost full width of the template.
  • Firefox 2.0.0.12 on 1600x1200: 412px!

I get these figures regardless of browser window being maximised or narrower. Note that I am not logged in in any browser other than Opera, so my stylesheet mods are not affecting anything. It looks as though the infobox width is specified in ems. Both my computers have 19" monitors, hence the one with the CRT@1600x1200 is running a much higher dpi. Nevertheless the text in firefox appears roughly the same size on each browser.dramatic (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dramatic - the template uses EMs (not that I even know what they are, honestly, I copied this template from another one, and learned via trial by error, because I am too impatient to read guidelines). It is set at 27em - the issue seems to stem from the fact that this is interpretetd differently by each browser (as visible by the fact you get it at a different width than I do). Maybe we could fix it via settings in your browser, or potentially switch it to a px-based fixed width. Ingolfson (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In CSS terms an em is a measure of the height of the font being used. Wikipedia, being accessibility-friendly, does not nail down the default font size, so it depends on the user's individual settings. (In my case tweaked by my user stylesheet). Em-based layouts are considered excellent. Unfortunately, other parts of the page do not use ems. (the left column is set in px, I think). Because the sidebar contains images, they will tend to affect its width requirements, and images cannot be sized in ems without unwelcome (and often unsightly) in-browser scaling. I think that in this case px might serve better. I'll look at all the styles to determine what will suit best. dramatic (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your change seems alright from my side. Did it fix yours? Ingolfson (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I set it to 310px, which should allow for a 300px image. Not quite as "accessible", but I'd consider the infobox to be secondary to the actual article prose anyhow.dramatic (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, good to have that solved. As for the article prose - you are welcome to work on them, many of the Auckland suburb articles are barely worth keeping at their current quality - except that they obviously talk about a notable thing. I'm doing some on-the-go fixes here and there to get them better, but with so many in Auckland alone, even rolling out the template over the whole of the category will take me weeks. Ingolfson (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Schools[edit]

Local schools (ie actually within the suburb) seems like an obvious thing to include here. Also, in terms of 'local' airports, hospitals etc, does this mean actually in the suburb or just the nearest one? --Helenalex (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit hesitant about schools, but I guess only very few suburbs would have more than a handful (though some could conceivably have a dozen+, which makes me wonder if that wouldn't then overload the box). The airport hospital etc... all only mean within the suburb. Ingolfson (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population density[edit]

Would it be possible to add population density to this template? It already includes population and area, so population density is something that the template could automatically calculate. Template:Infobox settlement allows for this. In NZ, we obviously have the advantage that we don't have to deal with metric/imperial conversions.

Given that the area input is required in hectares, but population density is commonly given as residents per square kilometre, it's useful to know that 100 ha = 1 km2. Schwede66 (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

two queries[edit]

I've used this infobox on an outer suburb (Aidanfield) now and have come across two issues:

  • It doesn't appear that I can use the pinpoint map that utilises Template:Location map New Zealand Christchurch. Would that be correct? If so, it would be a great improvement if that functionality could be added to this infobox.
  • I don't have any 'Facilities' in the suburb, so it should omit that header in the infobox. It does show, however.

Any advice greatly appreciated. Schwede66 09:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The location map is broken, because it maps to the Infobox field "image3". There is no such field currently. Should we map this to "image2", or will that break existing instances?
I notice also that the documentation has a field "popsource", but the template actually uses "popref". We should use one or the other, or allow both for compatibility.-gadfium 04:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Location map[edit]

I'm inclined to remove the specified location map from this infobox - for a suburb template, it makes more sense for a local map of the city to be used for the primary than a map of New Zealand as a whole. Local maps can still be specified at the moment, but given the New Zealand map is established in the infobox it always defers to the wider one first. I'll have a browse through the articles using this infobox first to make sure that they all have localised maps where possible first before doing anything, as well as whether anyone else wants to weigh in. Turnagra (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the default location map is not useful for suburbs. When I use this template, I remove it and use {{infobox mapframe}} instead, with a zoom of 10-13 as required to show the city name within the map.-gadfium 22:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've just realised that having the default location map is why I have to move the coordinates out of the infobox to stop the large map from appearing, so in my opinion having it is actually harmful.-gadfium 22:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 December 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. No opposition to the proposed move, doesn't seem controversial after all. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox New Zealand suburbs → Template:Infobox New Zealand suburb – These infoboxes are typically named in the singular. Since this went back and forth it's better to have an official RM here. Gonnym (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Community boards field (vs Local boards)[edit]

I have just added a field to this template for community boards.

The reason I have done this is because the "board" field already in the template appears to be intended for local boards, as they exist in Auckland, rather than community boards which are present in other parts of the country.

As per the Local Government Act 2002, local boards and community boards are actually legally distinct, with local boards being defined by Part 4, subpart 1A, and community boards defined by part 4, subpart 2. Section 48G (2) explicitly states that local boards are not community boards.

I will also note that a "local board" under the Local Government Act 2002, is also distinct from a "local board" under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009.

As far as I am aware, while Auckland has its local boards, no "local boards" under the Local Government Act 2002 currently exist. Though that's not to say they couldn't be established in future.

I have not attempted to change the name of the already present "board" field to "local_board", or something along those lines, as I did not want to mess with the template as its already in use. --Radicuil (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iwi/hapū in template[edit]

Would it be reasonably easy to add a mana whenua/local iwi/hapū field, similar to what's in the infobox at Akaroa? --Prosperosity (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The {{infobox_settlement}} used at Akaroa has the fields blank_name and blank_info for the label "Local iwi" and the iwi name. I think those fields are shortcuts for blank_name_sec1 and blank_info_sec1. This suburb template is a customisation which forwards all fields to the settlement template; it already uses blank1_name/info_sec1 through blank5*, but the settlement supports blank6 and blank7, plus blank*_sec2 for a further 7 available fields. This should make adding "iwi" and "hapu" fields easy; just forward them to blank1_name/info_sec6 and 7. The template checks for invalid fields near the bottom, so these new field names will need to be added to that list.
If you want to try to add these yourself, please copy the entire source of this template to one of the {{X1}} .. {{X15}} test areas, make the changes there and save them, and then in your sandbox copy an article replacing the infobox with the Xn template and see if preview works as expected.-gadfium 05:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's a globally-used template, I don't think you'd gain support for such a localisation. I'd use the blank fields that are there for such a purpose. Schwede66 10:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Region and use of city in subtitle[edit]

@HTGS: could you explain your point about conforming to save us having to rewrite the automatic description? I'm not sure how useful a "region" parameter is for suburbs, but I'm not sure how the infoboxes interact and I don't want to tinker with anything if it's gonna cause headaches elsewhere. Turnagra (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I feckin’ knew someone would ask. So it’s a hassle to read the short description generator if you’re not Lua fluent (and I am not), but the simple problem was that, for example, Aranui was giving a short description of Suburb of Christchurch in Christchurch City Council, New Zealand. The problem is essentially in the order of which subdivision type and name pair was associated with which level of human geography. I could have asked the Lua people over there to account for it, but I just opted for the easier option of rearranging slightly here. I also think it’s a not-illogical way to orient the params as is.
As for the question of region, don’t forget that it’s completely legal to just not use that parameter; Aranui’s infobox should be identical between those changes, for example. (To see the changes, go to edit an article by source, then change Infobox New Zealand suburb to Infobox New Zealand suburb/sandbox, then preview the page—I’ve already changed the sandbox to the previous version for you.) — HTGS (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I also cut Suburb of [city] down to Suburb in the subheader, just because semantically that section is supposed to be a category for “what the thing is”, but I imagine that could easily be up for debate. I don’t know if there’s prior consensus around that or whatever. — HTGS (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, yeah Lua can be a mare to decipher - I've had some experience with it and could kind of stumble my way through it, seems that there's a bit of scope for regionalisation but I don't know if it's worth it in this case. You're totally right that we can just ignore that parameter though which seems the easier option, I think the bigger thing for me was having the city in the subheader. I can't recall whether there was consensus for it, I posted about the location map further up but there might be something else in the archives of the main WPNZ page. I just thought that having the city up there at the top makes it a lot clearer as to the subject and doesn't bury the lede in a whole host of talk about local governance and whatnot. Turnagra (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Turnagra, I forgot to say, but you can totally put the city name back in the subhead if you want. I do prefer it this way just as it’s more consistent with similar place-IBs, but I don’t think it’s important. — HTGS (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just realised I never responded to this - thanks for that. Incidentally, I just came across that it seems the New York neighbourhood articles do something similar (see Times Square for an example) so I might look at putting it back at some point. I'll probably hold off until we settle on the below changes so it can all be done in one fell swoop though rather than piecemeal. Turnagra (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adjacent place template[edit]

I’m going to extricate the {{Adjacent place}} template from within this one. I intend to do this in two steps: first, I’ll split the parameters on every suburb page to two templates, then I’ll remove Adjacent place from this template. Having two boxes like this in one template is a bit of an old-fashioned technique nowadays (trying to do everything within one template), and it prevents us from being able to put the adjacent place box in more useful places within the article—like the geography sections of longer articles.

It should be pretty uncontroversial, but I wouldn’t want to get halfway through before editors here are aware of what I’m doing! — HTGS (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me.-gadfium 04:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of like having the adjacent places bit included as I feel like it's easier to ensure it's covered across the board that way, but I can totally see the issue with having two boxes in the one template. I wonder if an alternative could be to properly embed it in the infobox? Turnagra (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally hate making infoboxes bigger and longer than they need to be, and this would definitely add bulk... But if anyone wants to take that on, speak now. — HTGS (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HTGS: coming at this a bit late and I see you've already started splitting it out in some places, but I just noticed that Template:Infobox Australian place has it embedded in the infobox - the rest of the infobox is a bit of a hot mess, but perhaps we could look at how they've done that portion of it? Turnagra (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from me, but is there a way to fix the alignment? It's about 10 pixels shorter than the main infobox, which is quite annoying! --Prosperosity (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Prosperosity: I just want you to know, I tried. Theoretically, the width of the infobox is mainly set by our default width for the image (300px) plus some padding. I wanted to set the tbody of the AP’s table to 300px and then set the padding the same as the infobox, but for whatever reason that doesn’t seem to do it, and I’m too old for CSS. If someone else wants to take that on, it shouldn’t be that complex, but I also wonder that maybe redoing the AP box from scratch to use {{infobox}} (or some relevant subsidiary) might be a tidier solution, but I don’t think that’s something for me to take on right now. — HTGS (talk) 05:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to give it a shot at some point (along with other changes if we agree on any) once we've got the consensus - I seem to be on a bit of an infobox kick at the moment, having been updating hundreds of malformed uses of {{infobox landform}} and bringing that one up to par with the other natural infoboxes... Turnagra (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is inclined to take random requests, can the template pass "population_density_km2 = auto" to the parent? This will do nothing if population and area fields are not filled in, so it won't harm anything.-gadfium 21:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the Template:Adjacent communities, which can go either at the foot of the page, or in the article. Johnragla (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_New_Zealand_suburb&oldid=1159750181"