Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Melbourne/Suburbs
The following template:
<table border cellpadding=5 cellspacing=0 align=center> <tr> <td colspan=3 style=background:#efefef; align=center>'''<!-- Replace w/ lk to a local gov't area -->''' <br> ([[List of localities (Victoria)|All Melbourne Suburbs]])</td> </tr> <tr> <td><!-- Replace w/ lk to NW --></td> <td align=center><!-- Replace w/ lk to N --></td> <td><!-- Replace w/ lk to NE --></td> </tr> <tr> <td align=center><!-- Replace w/ lk to W --></td> <td align-center>'''<!-- Replace w/ name of page -->'''</td> <td align=center><!-- Replace w/ lk to E --></td> </tr> <tr> <td><!-- Replace w/ lk to SW --></td> <td align=center><!-- Replace w/ lk to S --></td> <td><!-- Replace w/ lk to SE --></td> </tr> </table>
may be added to a troublesome page of this project, and a comment such as
<!-- Replace w/ name of page -->
may then replaced by the corresponding text (or by the markup for a link, i.e., a double-bracketed suburb name.
Then the existing markup can be discarded, since all its useful information will be in place awaiting filling in the other cells of the table. (Well, by what will become a table again, once the present (directional) dummy links, and the comments in this template, are replaced by suburb names and links to suburbs.)
Here's how the template looks with nothing replaced:
| ' (All Melbourne Suburbs) |
||
| ' | ||
Here's how the template looks with the info that most of the suburbs already have replacing those two corresponding comments:
| The Podunks (All Melbourne Suburbs) |
||
| Podunk Center | ||
Here's a more completely filled in sample:
| The Podunks (All Melbourne Suburbs) |
||
| Podunk NW | Podunk NE | |
| Podunk Center | ||
| Podunk SW | ||
I think this works better. Unfortunately, a lot of pages already have the To North tables, (in hindsight I shouldn't have made those links when I suggested the table in the first place). I and other people are starting to fill in the tables though, so any new suburb pages ought to have this one by default. Hypernovean 05:34, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
- Sounds good. While those who know something about the subject matter are doing that, i hope to steadily chip away at the ones no one is getting around to, by occasionally converting pages listed on To North's ghost's What-links-here page. Wikipedia grinds slowly, but the time when they are all completed or converted is forseeable.
- The improved MediaWiki 1.3 transclusion facility may also be valuable for this; when it's on line and stable, let's discuss whether to use it here. --Jerzy(t) 17:22, 2004 May 25 (UTC)
I've made a few changes to the table, including the new table syntax, a small All Melbourne suburbs link, N, W, NE, etc. text so as the table doesn't appear without any cells to begin with, and a Please help fill in this table. notice. I'm starting to roll this out were the To Norths still show up, and will start to fill things in from the street directory when I have more time. TPK 06:36, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Naming
Should all suburbs be named XXX, Victoria, even when XXX is a unique name on WP? TPK 04:08, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I'd argue so, for the sake of consistency. It's likely for many of them (apart from the Aboriginal-based names) that there will be others someday, and it'd be nice to know exactly where the article is when linking to it. Ambivalenthysteria 04:19, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Moved from main page:
(Articles should be titled as Suburb when unique, Suburb, Victoria when not.) Should all suburb articles be in the Suburb, Victoria style? TPK 08:52, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The general form seems to be the first option (Suburb or Suburb, Victoria if not unique.) However the second would be extremely helpful when doing adjacancy tables, as we wouldn't need to second-guess what the articles were named.
- The other thing to be careful about is to make sure none of the other Victoria's have smaller geographical subdivisions, with the same name. I don't think we should worry about that until it happens. -- Chuq 02:42, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, and I've started to think it would be better to have , Victoria across the board. It would require a lot of moving around though, but it's neccessary. As for other Victoria's, I doubt they'llbe much of a problem, and disambigs are no big deal if they were needed eventually. TPK 03:42, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What is and what isn't a Suburb
I know I tend to wax lyrical on this subject, but I believe it's important to make sure that the places called "suburbs" on Wikipedia actually are official, gazetted suburbs according to government guidelines. I have here the Edition 31 Melway (it's more or less my bible!). It gives the official suburb boundaries, and in the front, states that there is a difference between a "locality" and a "suburb", basically that one is an unofficial name for a place and the other has distinct boundaries. Now I know that most of the pages that have been created, or are redlinked on the List of Melbourne suburbs are official suburbs, but I wouldn't want something to slip through into the wrong category. I don't think there's much to worry about, but checking things would be nice.
That leads to the next point: should the unofficial "locality" names be created as redirects to the suburb that contains them? For example, Gardiner, Victoria redirects to Glen Iris, Victoria (which is currently just Glen Iris, see above - also note that Glen Iris, Victoria was named after a place in Scotland, so it doesn't really deserve the main article).
Should the unofficial locality names then be listed somewhere too? List of Melbourne localities would be technically appropriate, but not wiki-appropriate. I guess they can go into the main list, as long as they are indicated; e.g.:
- Gardiner (local name) - See Glen Iris
TPK 03:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Infobox MelbourneSuburbTable
I've just created Template:Infobox MelbourneSuburbTable. As a result the following code:
{{Infobox_MelbourneSuburbTable |
suburb_city_name=[[City of Kingston]] |
suburb_nw=[[Chelsea, Victoria|Chelsea]] | suburb_n=[[Chelsea Heights, Victoria|Chelsea Heights]] | suburb_ne=[[Bangholme]] |
suburb_w=[[Bonbeach]],<br>[[Carrum]] | suburb_name='''Patterson Lakes''' | suburb_e=[[Bangholme]] |
suburb_sw=[[Seaford]] | suburb_s=[[Seaford]] | suburb_se=[[Carrum Downs]]
}}
Generates the suburb adjacency table as shown at Patterson Lakes/temp.
Advantages:
- Layout, etc. can be standardised, and changed when needed, with the changes taking effect on ALL suburb pages that use the Infobox!
Disadvantages:
- Shading, ie. Port Phillip Bay cannot be done (though it can be, with some minor changes)
- Joint cells (as in Patterson Lakes now) cannot be done - but I think this way looks better.. more organised.
Suggestions/comments?
-- Chuq 06:54, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I love it! I would have done something similar if I had gotten my head around the template variables syntax. There are now so many different versions of the table around its getting ridiculous, with everyone trawling through and replacing them with their own variations. I think standardization is very important. Do you think you could create something similar for the railway stations? There are a few (albeit slight) variations around (though I have to admit they're mostly due to my tinkering!), but it would be great to have a standardized template and syntax there too. Taking up fewer lines in the edit box is a nice side-effect too.
- PS: In the code above, if you replace suburb_name=Patterson Lakes with suburb_name={{PAGENAME}} it would be even simpler.
- TPK 07:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I don't blame you - the syntax is pretty tricky. I had to do some copy and pastes from existing templates to make sure I did it all correctly. I'll look at the railway stations but I can't guarantee anything! BTW, the {{PAGENAME}} may be an issue for articles names Suburb, Victoria as it would include the whole name in the suburb box. -- Chuq 10:21, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)