Template talk:Infobox Scottish island/Archive 1

Population and size ranking
Although Haswell-Smith's book is undoubtedly the best reference, I don't think that his ranking system is suitable for wikipedia as he uses a definition of island which excludes those linked by bridge to the mainland (ie. Skye), and treats islands linked together by bridges/causeways as one (e.g South Uist, Benbecula, Eriskay etc). Are we going to say that Skye should not be categorised as an island? If not then we should ignore Haswell-Smith's rankings and use those in List_of_islands_of_Scotland.--JBellis 16:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The 'List of inhabited islands by Population Size' is fine, but the list of 'Largest islands in Scotland,' is useless for smaller islands outside the largest ten, which are my main interest. Whilst I agree that Haswell-Smith's notion of what is and is not an island is flawed, the only way to come up with something better would be to add everything that's missing back into his list (or any other similar one, should it exist.) It's not a trivial piece of work and as the transcluded template is not heavily in use at present, I am not going to offer to do it just yet! It seems surprising that after nearly 200 years of Scottish geography H-Smith had, so he claims, to measure them all himself. Ben MacDui (Talk) 23:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If we agree that Haswell-Smith's definition of an island is not the same as that used in Wikipedia, why do you think that it is valid to use his ranking system without explanation? Should SOuth Uist be 4 (HS) or 10 as in List_of_islands_of_Scotland? Without a compatible ranking system surely it would be better to not list a ranking. Other than the obvious Munros ranking, there aren't rankings for all rivers, lochs, forests etc.  --JBellis 20:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We agree that Haswell-Smith's definition of an island is not ideal, but I can't think of any obvious reason not to use it as the best list there is at present. I completely agree that South Uist should be 10. If you want to use it for South Uist, or somewhere else all we need to do is agree that the first 10 should use the existing list, and that smaller islands should come from Haswell-Smith until a better list is drawn up, accepting that the entries using H-Smith will change when this happens. An alternative would be to use the template but ignore the ranking. The template is currently used in 3 places. At my rate of progress it might be a dozen by the end of the year. I don't think there is a major problem in having a few discrepancies in the meantime. If you are planning to use it on lots of islands soon, I would be happy to create a new list.
 * I'm with Ben here; Haswell-Smith's rankings need to be checked to ensure that they are appropriate for our definition of an island, but provided we check them for obvious differences and accept that we may have to make future alterations in light of better information, we should use them. Warofdreams talk 00:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have completed an update of Haswell's area rankings using the detailed data he has in the chapters. I have only done this for the first 102 islands in the appendix. Eilean Iubhard descends from 102 in the appendix to 126 (i.e the are a total of 24 additional islands in the first 102 including the Uists, Skye etc.) I used the list of islands by population as a starting point and discovered that Grimsay B and Flodda are not easy to place, although they are probably not large enough to appear in the first 100 anyway.Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Location map
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Commons:Category:Location Maps of Scotland

Moving the dot: to move the black dot just download the Low-res image to your computer and open it with an image editing program. Then you can either "select" the area of the black dot and drag it to the location you want or just erase the dot and place a new one where you need it. Then just save with a suitable name, upload and add it to the location map category. The GIMP is a nice free editor which can do most thinks (windows installer here)) - the additional benefit of using the gimp is that you can download the xcf map map which will open with the dot preselected and ready to move to where you need it. (The above are the intsructions provided to me, which seems to work, but I am by no means skilled in this). Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There are also separate categories of 'Locator maps of Orkney and Shetland islands' and 'Locator maps of the Outer Hebrides' on Commons which may be suitable. Ben MacDui (Talk) 14:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I discovered many more maps for Scottish islands hiding in a variety of locations and I have attempted to corall them within one Commons category here which includes an Inner Hebrides sub-category. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

'Group' field
The purpose of this field is to make it easier to locate an island. The groups, after Haswell-Smith, are as follows:
 * 1) Firth of Clyde
 * 2) Islay
 * 3) Mull
 * 4) Small Isles
 * 5) Skye
 * 6) North-west
 * 7) Lewis and Harris
 * 8) Uists and Barra
 * 9) St Kilda
 * 10) Orkney
 * 11) Shetland
 * plus Firth of Lorn for the many islands north of Scarba and to the south of Loch Linnhe and
 * Firth of Forth

Haswell-Smith's 'Atlantic Outliers' is not in use as it seems more logical to group the Flannan Isles, North Rona and Sula Sgeir with Lewis than with St Kilda. If the template is used for some of the smaller island groups such as Solway Firth or Firth of Tay will be needed. It's common sense really.

'North-west' is accurate enough but rather unevocative. Suggestions very welcome.

Note that in the case of the Northern Isles 'Orkney' and 'Shetland' link to descriptions of the council area/archipelago, so I have used

island group=[The Mainland, Orkney|Orkney]

local authority=[Orkney|Orkney Islands]

and

island group=[Shetland Mainland|Shetland]

local authority=[Shetland|Shetland Islands]

There is some inconsistency in the existing transclusions which I will attempt to fix asap. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments: I generally agree with this classification, but it should be made that Argyll-Sutherland = Hebrides, and there should also be a section for Islands in the Firth of Forth. --MacRusgail 18:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The presence of a Hebrides template will hopefully remove any ambiguity about that, and yes there is no reason not to have a Firth of Forth section - its just that the islands are relatively small and I have not yet paid them any attention. Feel free to do so! - it's all work in progress. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've done a lot of work on the Islands of the Forth. Most, are indeed small, but their proximity to the capital and densely populated areas makes them of interest. In particular, Inchkeith for example has been of tactical importance to Leith. I intend to expand all of them at some point.

--MacRusgail 16:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff. I hadn't realised so much was happening on the east coast. Things are generally pretty sleepy in the west and north. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox UK place merger
Could anyone interested look at Template talk:Infobox UK place where I have raised the issue of a possible merger. Your thoughts / comments would be most appreciated. Regan123 10:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

coordinates
I've added a coordinates option, but the display isn't how it should be (see Islay); can someone assist, please? Thank you. Andy Mabbett 15:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Done (chgallen 13:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Thank you. Andy Mabbett 14:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Needs vast improvement
To be brought into line with "infobox Scotland place with map". Also, I think that the language section needs to be tidied up - e.g. none of this "Celtic" name stuff. Gaidhlig names are the only ones really relevant there. However, I think in the case of the Northern Isles, that sections for the Shetlandic/Orcadian (Lowland Scots) names + Norn/Old Norse names (where known) would be more in order. In their case, the Gaelic can be omitted. In the case of the islands in the Clyde, many have Lallans forms. --MacRusgail 18:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sadly infobox Scotland is in process of deletion. Also, it is not an attempt to duplicate the Scotland or UK place infobox but to create something island specific. I can see no purpose in having an infobox for umpteen small islands that simply repeats the same information over and over about car registrations and ambulances, especially as many are uninhabited. Indeed, attempting to overlap with UK infobox woudl most likely result in proposed deletion


 * The 'Celtic' name is because a few are apparently Brythonic e.g. Arran (and some may be of Irish rather than Scots). On the very few occasions I have come across so far where where there are Lowland Scots derivations (Muckle Roe) this is mentioned. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree about the car regs & ambulances. However, I think that the etymology of the name should be separated from the Gaidhlig form. "Arran" is of disputed etymology, but all the islands off Scotland's west coast (as opposed to northern isles) have a Gaidhlig name of some description. In the case of islands with reasonably large populations, including the two "Mainlands", "Lewis and Harris" and "Skye" etc, then there would a good case fo rinfo boxes.


 * In short, my view is ditch the local service information, and to separate the etymology from the Gaidhlig/Lallans name. The same could go for mountains, some of which have an English etymology e.g. "The Cobbler", but have a different Gaidhlig name --MacRusgail 16:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being dense but I don't quite follow you. There isn't any local service info in the island infobox (although a suggestion was made about including ferries). Also there are separate fields for the two main language sources of the names and a different one to explain the meaning. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the phrase "Gaelic or Celtic name", as Gaelic is a Celtic language. Surely it should read "Gaelic or Brythonic name", or simply "Celtic name". Lurker 17:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Location map again
Does anyone know make a location map with a marker dot in this infobox? - as Aberdeen and Edinburgh. As far as I can see the present map needs to be designed specifically for an island. Some of the existing maps have such a small patch of red that it is hard to see the location. I have the syntax for Template:Location map - mock up at User:Finavon/sandbox2, although I see MSIE does not float text alongside first table. I cannot see how to incorporate that into Template:Infobox Scottish island. Is this worth pursuing? Finavon 01:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never tried to use this map I'm afraid. In the context of UK infobox the co-ordinates don't seem to work that well. (See for example Burghead). Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC) PS You can try asking for one to me made at WP:SCOWNB


 * Its not the image itself, rather the syntax (or template modification) to superimpose a dot on Image:Scotland (Location) Template (HR).png within Template:Infobox Scottish island. I hope someone reads this who knows how to get it right. Ideally I would like to use the infobox on each island page, including a map. It seems unnecessary to create images for 206 islands (my current total - agree with Carna). The ability to use the various existing maps, or the "outline plus dot" seems a reasonable idea. There is clearly an accuracy problem (Burghead still shows the general area), but my greater concern is the amount of map obscured by the dot - especially on a small map. Finavon 10:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ISLE
Watchers of this page are hereby notified of the existence of WikiProject Scottish Islands aka WP:ISLE. You are very welcome to visit and contribute. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Printable version
Choosing a page with an infobox and then 'printable version', creates an infobox with a long http://wwwrhaworth.myby....... web reference, which is not visible in the normal version and is certainly not directly included in the code of the template. (I have looked at this with two different browsers). Does anyone have an idea of the cause, and/or can fix it? Ben MacDui (Talk) 07:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to be related to the map link associated with the grid reference. Following it gives the page reached by clicking the GR. See also the printable version of List of Marilyns on Scottish islands! I would not get very excited - Wiki is not intended to be printed. Finavon 07:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Insularity
I am considering adding a field for this quality. The ideas is to use it as a measure of the dificulty of travelling there (by land and public transport and without using aviation).

A traveller from mainland Britain can walk onto Skye over the bridge. Its insularity is therefore nil.

To reach Orkney they must take a ferry. Its insularity is therefore single.

To reach Westray they must take another ferry. Its insularity is therefore double.

To reach Eilean Annraidh north of Iona the traveller must take a ferry to Mull, then another to Iona, then row over to the islet. Its insularity is therefore triple.

Comments welcome. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems rather like original research to me. Unless you can cite sources that list the insularity of Scottish islands. And it seems rather arbitrary - why exclude aviation? And why exclude bridges but include ferries? And why can't you just row directly from the mainland to Eilean Annraidh?
 * Though I think it would be useful for island articles to inlcude a 'travel' or 'transport' section which would describe the possible ways of getting there. --Vclaw 13:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You might be able to row to Iona from the mainland, but I couldn't! However I have been looking around for a source for this kind of information without any success. Whilst I actually don't think public aviation routes would make much difference and I do think the concept is potentially useful as a measure of an island's remoteness, in the absence of anything that would satisfy WP:V it will have to bide its time. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks an interesting idea - could call it "Connectedness" and list road (ie bridge/causeway) (are there any islands with a footbridge connection, not road, I wonder?), ferry, air service. But would you want to distinguish between ferry (several a day) and ferry (once a week) etc? Could get messy, and would need a lot of checking/updating? PamD 12:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rereading, I see you want a single numerical parameter for "insularity". Not sure it would work.  But a list of connections would go a long way towards the info needed, even without quantifying frequency etc:  this island is connected to X by road, A, B and C by ferry, British mainland by air (showing direct services only), etc. PamD 12:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"rankings" need explanation
If you are not a Scottish islands expert but just go to an article for an island - say Westray - the infobox is obscure. There's "Area rank if >40 ha: 24 " and "Population rank: 20 out of 97". No indication what group is being ranked (local authorities, parishes, Orkney islands, British islands, ...?). Could I suggest that the text be amended to "Area rank among Scottish islands" and "Population rank among Scottish islands"? PamD 09:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a question of space - and still evolving. I suspect only people with an interest in following it through will pursue the rankings. They relate to the first reference - List of islands of Scotland. I'll await comments from the editors of the infobox. Finavon 09:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It was perhaps a little clearer until a mysterious anon removed 'Scottish island' from the template header, and I agree that the information is more obscure than is desirable. Adding Ranks refer to Scottish Islands to the bottom below References might do the trick. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In line with WP:BOLD I've amended the template - carefully, and from looking at Westray it looks OK. I'd be delighted if someone improves the wording, but I really do think it needs either a change like this or the replacement of "Scottish island of" as deleted by the anon - it just doesn't make sense otherwise! What I can't see is how to fix things so that the population rank field appears on Template:Infobox Scottish island page (an omission which predates my editing the template!). PamD 10:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rank only appear when there is data in the population field - there is none on the (blank) template page. It works on Westray, which looks a little cluttered. Finavon 10:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see: every island has an area ranking, but only the populated have a pop ranking - that explains why the one appears on the template page and not the other. Obvious when I think about it!  Thanks.  Yes, Westray looks cluttered, but at least it makes sense: I don't know whether it might be clearer to put the extra words into the field name... will give it a try.  Looking at Bac Mor, the existing version doesn't work - but if pop ranking can be suppressed when absent, presumably area ranking can too. PamD 12:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Have edited the template again, making the area ranking only appear in Infobox when it's present (copying the syntax from the pop ranking), and putting the clarifications into the left-hand col, field name, rather than with the data. I think it's clearer, and looks OK for Westray (has both rankings), Cava, Orkney (ranked area, no pop) and for Bac Mor (area <40ha). I see Innis Chonain has an area ranking although <40ha, which presumably would have appeared with the old template as "Area ranking if >40ha", confusingly! (I was looking for an example of small and populated.) Enough for one day. PamD 12:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks better in the labels. Innis Chonain should not have an area ranking (removed) - hard enough to get them down to 40 ha! As I said, early days and still ironing out mistakes - still working to add infoboxes. Finavon 16:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Template September 07
Copied from my talk page re problem with use of template map at Dubh Artach, Ben MacDui (Talk) 11:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC):
 * OK, I see the problem you are talking about. The issue is that the infobox only works with a static map; trying to generate one using a template doesn't work.  To my mind, the best approach would be to include the additional information required to generate the dynamic map as fields in the infobox.  It could then be set to automatically display, unless a static map is specified.  If that sounds like it might be of interest, I'd be happy to get it working. Warofdreams talk 18:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think by this that you mean it would automatically display the standard map and a red dot? If so, yes please - the map has some deficiencies but its much better than a blank space if no detailed map is available. Cheers. Ben MacDui (Talk) 18:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've done that. It will now display the standard map and a red dot for any article with a latitude and longitude entered. Warofdreams talk 00:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fixed the problem and adds a potentially useful new feature - many thanks. I am not sure about the details here, but given that the co-ords also get displayed at the top of the page, will it work if the lat/long fields are hidden from view in the infobox? Ben MacDui (Talk) 11:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * i've tried it using tags, but that kils the map too. Lurker  (said · done) 11:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, it was the tag I should have been using. The fields are now hidden, but the map displays. Lurker  (said · done) 12:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought displaying the co-ordinates in the infobox might be useful, but if we don't ever want the co-ordinates to display in the infobox, we can just remove those lines. Warofdreams talk 12:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand what it does by I think the documentation provided by our departed friend Pigs on the Wing automatically creates co-ords somehow. (If that's not that it does its purpose eludes me). Ben MacDui (Talk) 21:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * From testing it out, removing the longitude and latitude figures stops the map from displaying. So I put a tag in the template code. This means editors have to include the figures, but they do not display. As far as I can tell, this is the only way to have a location map in the box without also displaying the coordinates. Lurker  (said · done) 10:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it works fine. I've fixed it. Warofdreams talk 15:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That "Celtic" thing again
(A hobby horse of mine...)

Why can't we just say Gaelic, isn't that what is nearly always meant? Also, I think it should be pointed out that while nearly all the islands south of the Pentland Firth have some kind of Gàidhlig name, this is not always the same as the etymology, e.g. Rùm (current name) and I-Dhruim (possible etymology), ditto St Kilda and Hiort. --MacRusgail 18:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this not already fixed |dif? Ben MacDui(Talk) / (Walk)  20:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Boat Image
The image of a longboat is used next to the Saltire to emphasise the difference with Template:Infobox Scotland place. The said image is called Image:McdonaldBoat.jpg. Before ancient foes of Clan Donald complain, I am assured that the proper name for this image is a 'Lymphad' and that its was actually purloined from the Russian wikipedia. The same image appears on Image:Norse-Gael Warrior.PNG and the Sinclair Orkney arms  which suggests to me that the lymphad may be appropriate for all our isles whether they have a primarily Celtic or primarily Norse history. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the boat image is a

See also 'Image' below. It was removed before then immediately replaced. The Deacon and Angus seems to understand its provenance. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  09:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Image
Image:McdonaldBoat.jpg is not recognised. Finavon 07:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't remember where, but in the last couple of days I saw a message saying it was a copyvio as it had originally been lifted from a Russian heraldry site - the beige background was cited as evidence supporting this. PamD 08:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Foolishly, I was not watching the image, but I have tried to track down its provenance. See my talk page. I'll remove it from the template if its not fixed in a few hours. Ben MacDui (Talk) 13:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That image was originally from here: A Closer Look at West Highland Heraldry.--Celtus (talk) 09:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well not according to my previous information. It came from a Russian wiki of some sort. What an absolute pain (again). Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  20:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lymphad image now re-created using different image. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  12:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

December 07 image change
The old image was bounced from Commons earlier this month, but a new one has been found. Its part of a bigger coat of arms image on Commons. It was then take to Commons Licensing for approval. For the record here is some of the dialogue:

Part of a CoA image

I recently left a comment at User talk:Steifer#Image:Lymphad3.jpg in which I say: "I have uploaded a portion of your Douglas coat of arms (Image:Douglas hamiltonCoA.png) as the above image (Image:Lymphad3.jpg).... It is my assumption that this does not violate the copyright of the original image, and my hope that you will be agreeable to its use in this manner."

User:Steifer has not yet replied. I have been told by a couple of experienced Commons users that there isn't a problem as the image "should be in the public domain because of its age". I'd be obliged if you could confirm this. Thanks. W. L. Tarbert 12:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If that portion of the original image is public domain (I didn't look into the original source so I'm not sure), then it is fine, but your upload should then probably be marked public domain as well. If User:Steifer is considered the author, then he would be the author of your upload too -- I would change to the PD-user tag and not use PD-self, as cropping an image doesn't add any new copyright (it's the same copyright as the original). Carl Lindberg 16:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the original image was released by it's author as GFDL and cc-by-2.5 that means that the author has allowed anyone to make derivatives based on that image. You're image is therefore ok since it correctly states the source from which it was derived. /Lokal_Profil 01:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  20:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

references section
Why has this infobox got a separate section for references? Surely the references belong next to what they are referring to? i.e. the reference for population should be next to the number for population. As it is, it is confusing as to what the tiny little numbers at the bottom of the box refer to. See how its done with the UK place infobox, on Aberdeen for example. --Vclaw (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to see such an example as many of them seem unreferenced or under-referenced. Aberdeen itself has citations for only a small percentage of the material. By contrast very little that appears in island Infoboxes is lacking a citation or other corroborative evidence. The main reason is that Haswell Smith - the most commonly used reference work - will often cover most or even all of the details. This is usually backed up by the Ordnance Survey for highest point, GRO for population etc. I take your point, but anyone familiar with the subject is unlikely to think that the Ordnance Survey is being used to verify the population, or that the Orkneyinga Saga is a citation for the highest elevation. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  10:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Last inhabited
It would be interesting to list the last date of inhabitation where known on the uninhabited islands, although there would have to be a distinction between lighthouse keepers and proper inhabitants! --MacRusgail (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea and we already have info for Orkney and Shetland on the lists. I suspect there might be a lot of 'unknown's in the Hebrides. What have you got against lighthouse keepers? It also annoys me to have to define Hirta as uninhabited because the census does not seem to count the military base. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  08:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think we've gone over this before. Lighthouse keepers and military personnel, not to mention occasional holiday makers are on and off the island. Farmers and fishermen may have to be based there. If it's unknown, we leave it blank. Some of the wee stack in Shetland appear to have been inhabited by Culdees at some point. --MacRusgail (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OK - I'll have a look into this but I'm a bit stretched at present. Give me a prod if I don't do anything within say 10 days. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  19:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC):

Let's not add another field to the infobox, but rather use the existing "population" field, which by definition will be zero. Indeed I think some islands already have "uninhabited since ". Finavon (talk) 09:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you go about this? --MacRusgail (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You just add "last inhabited 1314" in the population field so that it reads : |Population= last inhabited 1314. If its not already there it needs a ref as well of course. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  20:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to do this we should try to be consistent e.g.:
 * 7th century BC
 * 13th century
 * 1860s
 * 1931
 * Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  20:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As a rule of thumb, perhaps go by century, then decade from 18/19th century onwards, and precise year, if known, esp in 20 th c onwards. --MacRusgail (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Rankings note
Following on from the discussion above, I think it would be tidier to have the explanatory note at the bottom of the box. I'll provide an amendment shortly for any comments. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  15:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks better as it straightens up the data tables. I can't find a way to make the final text not bold, although this surely can't be difficult. Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  15:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Optional heading name
I have added an optional parameter, official_name to set the title and caption. The default is still. I cannot see why it does not work for the label: see Horse Island, Summer Isles. Finavon (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now working - mainly my inability to purge the template cache. Caption is displayed separately from map image or a border appears around the map. Finavon (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Reference use
The GA review of Gigha has raised a number of issues, including the use of references in the infobox (see Talk:Gigha). The reveiwer undoubtedly has a point that in-line citations are desirable, although no-one has ever asked for them before in the ten or so WPSI GAs, and a quick look at WP:UK geo FAs indicates that few, if any of them use this method. In the end it was agreed to use a new format that involves a main reference stating "Infobox source is Haswell-Smith (2004) pp. 37–41 unless otherwise stated." and in-line refs for e.g. population. Ben  Mac  Dui  19:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

See also WP:GOODISLE.

Gaelic pronunciation
Optional field added. Ben  Mac  Dui  18:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Should the gaelic name also be optional? Finavon (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is certainly very little used in the Northern Isles. Ben   Mac  Dui  07:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now in place - leaves a bit of blank in the Northern Isles but seems OK otherwise. Ben   Mac  Dui  21:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can the box section not shrink if the attribute is not present? Finavon (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice, going to try it out later... I should be writing a report >.< Akerbeltz (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Done Skye, looks good. Incidentally, is it meant to be that Harris has a UK Place infobox rather than a Scottish Island infobox? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Absurd tho' UK Place infobox is in these rural situations, I cannot complain, as the Isle of Harris - well, isn't an island... Ben   Mac  Dui  17:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I though you were going to say that ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems with maps
Hi, there's a discussion at Talk:R%C3%B9m about a problem with the display of the map in this infobox. I've just tried a few other articles using the infobox and it seems that all the "red dot" maps fail to display in my browser (IE 8). All I see is a blank space. Sometimes I see a flash of a map which is then blanked. I think this needs looking at. 86.146.47.248 (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC).
 * It is fine here with IE8 and Firefox 3.05. Finavon (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strange ... I wonder what could be different between your IE8 setup and the setup used by me and the other person who said they experienced the same problem... 81.129.128.20 (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC).

Any further discussion

Since the root cause of this and other related problems seems to be the "Location Map" template, I propose that further discussion is carried out at Template_talk:Location_map. 86.146.46.169 (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC).

Population Density
This parameter should now work, and the data is at WikiProject Scottish Islands/Islands by population density. NB the "Usage" section and the need to provide references. See for example, Islay. Ben  Mac  Dui  15:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Image Caption
There has been an undocumented Image field in the template, and no means of providing an appropriate caption. Caption has been added and /doc has been updated. --Stewart  ( talk |  edits ) 15:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Co-ordinates
Quite a few islands have co-ordinates in the infobox, and in the article. In the first instance for the point on the map, and the second for the header coordinates. This can be combined, to avoid replication (and possible errors) to use the infobox to place the header co-ordinates. I could not make it work in the sandbox - can anyone work it out? --Stewart  ( talk |  edits ) 15:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox
I have been totally tripped up by the sandbox not replicating the template prior to testing two changes. It does mean that I will have to ensure I take a fresh copy across to the sandbox before experimenting. However unless there is a test in progress (and put a comment in the sandbox), please leave the sandbox identical to the template. --Stewart  ( talk |  edits ) 15:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Which sandbox? Ben   Mac  Dui  19:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Infobox Scottish island/sandbox that the template directed me to to use to test changes. --Stewart  ( talk |  edits ) 22:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Local maps
I have been thinking of upgrading Template:Infobox Scottish island so that it defaults to a local map. The main ones needed would be:

However I can't figure out how Infobox UK place organises this. I have dropped a post at a related discussion at Template talk:Location map Scotland to request assistance. Ben  Mac  Dui  12:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Orkney Islands UK location map.svg
 * File:Shetland UK location map.svg
 * File:Outer Hebrides UK location map.svg
 * File:Isle of Skye UK location map.svg
 * File:Argyll and Bute UK location map.svg
 * Switching to localised maps is probably a good idea in longer term.
 * The localisation element of Template:Infobox UK place is handled via calls to Template:Infobox UK place/local. Cloning the relevant bits of that template ought to get the desired results here. A sandbox to work it up is sensible - I can probably help with that if you want.
 * However, I am not sure switching to File:Orkney Islands UK location map.svg is an improvement: It might be localised, but its going back from a relief map to a political one. It would be better to use localised, relief maps. I should be able to start making these over the few weeks. Once these are available, it would be ideal for this template to use those files. In their absence, its probably best to stick to the national map.---Nilfanion (talk)
 * I've added support for a location_map parameter to the sandbox, results can be seen to right for differing maps. If nothing is specified, the default map is remains all Scotland. Support could be added to default to the right local government area, with a slight tweak to local authority.
 * As for how it treats relief vs non-relief maps:
 * yes is hard-coded for the call to location map. This means the template will call image1 if its available, if not available it falls back to the default. This means "Scotland Highland" uses the relief version, while "Scotland Isle of Skye" uses the non-relief as there is no relief version yet.
 * If there is no other location map defined it goes to Location map Scotland relief instead of Location map Scotland. This is to ensure the relief map is called (given how the Scotland template is reverse to standard).
 * As it stands, there is no way to call the non-relief map if that is preferred. This could be done by allowing the user to enter a relief parameter. Copying the coding from Infobox mountain/main will ensure the default is the relief version.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Great maps! I don't think a non-relief map is generally to be preferred and if you can provide the tweak to local authority I think that would be ideal. (I doubt it will work for some outliers such a Sule Skerry but I can watch out for that.) Much appreciated. Ben  Mac  Dui  08:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC).
 * I've made above adjustment so template can use the new maps now. Not sure how to proceed with regards to making use of local authority, I'm thinking about it. Whatever I do to enable autoselection, a manually selected map will always be chosen in preference. So you can change some over and get a feel to how much of an improvement there is :)--Nilfanion (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Owner / manager
I think it would be useful if the infobox had fields for who owns / manages the island. Obviously this would only be useful where there is just one or two owners for the whole island. And where there are reliable sources for that. Maybe it could also mention the type of owner - ie private, government, community, charity etc. This should be mentioned in the article somewhere, but it would be handy to quickly find it in the infobox. --Vclaw (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, although I wonder how it would work. I think we'd have to stick to ownership itself as "management" might change quite regularly and without there being an obvious way of knowing. I'd also suggest that a series of categories (not in the Wikipedia sense) would be better, otherwise naming names might well look some sort of personal ad. The concept is also more likely to be applicable to both smaller islands in general and to the Hebrides rather than Orkney/Shetland, where I think ownership is less likely to be in the hands of a single large estate. It's also potentially quite a lot of work. If you'd be willing to draft a short list of exemplar candidates (ideally with refs) I think that would be helpful starting point for a more in-depth discussion. 18:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, maybe it is best just to say "Private" instead of naming individual people. For management, I was thinking of the likes of Handa, which is privately owned, but managed by the Scottish Wildlife Trust. And has been managed by them for about 20 years, I don't think it will change any time soon. Or Noss, which is owned by the Gardie Trust, but managed by SNH. I'm thinking it would be most useful for the islands owned/managed by the bigger organisations (and easiest to find references for these), eg:

--Vclaw (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * National Trust for Scotland: Canna, Bucinch and Ceardach (Loch Lomond), Fair Isle, Staffa, St Kilda, Mingulay, Berneray, Pabbay, Shieldaig Island
 * Scottish Natural Heritage: most of Rùm, islands of Loch Maree, Monach Isles, Noss
 * Historic Scotland: Inchmahome, Incholm, Eileach an Naoimh
 * Transport Scotland: Eilean Bàn (though managed by the Eilean Bàn Trust)
 * Community owned: Eigg, Gigha, most of Benbecula/Eriskay/South Uist, the populated parts of Rùm

Canadian islands
I was directed here with some questions/issues with infobox islands, and I see from the discussion here, which I am trying to unravel, that,  and  might derived from the work/notions here re infobox Scottish islands; the reason for the three different Canadian ones is that the content-issues are different in each case; as also with  for those in lakes and rivers. Please see Talk:McMillan Island and template talk:infobox islands re some of the issues; I haven't listed all, but the range of items can be found in Category:Islands of British Columbia; I'll leave it at that for now, but may start listing island-settlements vs settlements-on-islands, which may overlap in various ways; McMillan Island is what set me off on the questions/issues with the infobox islands template.....but I see there are ways to customize things, which I'd say is needed from region to region of the world, or in the case of Canada in all its vastness and variation, of the country.Skookum1 (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As you can seem, your link are red, meaning that there are no such templates. McMillan Island uses Infobox island. I've replied on its talk page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * red-linked them on purpose as sugggted titles for the templates; if I knew more about coding and 'wrappers' I might have tried to just use those links to copy over and adapt the Scottish island one.Skookum1 (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case, please don't create forked templates, like those in your red-links. They're unnecessary. We don't need one, much less three, new templates for each country. The generic one is fine. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrapper
I have started, in the sandbox, to make a version of this template which is a wrapper for Infobox islands. One of the advantages of the latter is that it takes a single value for quantitative fields like area & population, and automatically calculates the conversion from metric to imperial, and the population density. This template currently requires manual use of convert. I would propose, if there is consensus to move to the wrapper version, to do the following:


 * 1) modify this template temporarily to work on both ways
 * 2) Have a bot (or AWB user) replace the content of instances of the template
 * 3) apply the new version

-- Thoughts? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thoughts? - today's sudden, undiscussed (although possibly co-ordinated?) amendments to this long-standing template and its familairs leave me at rather at a loss for words. I will respond when I have had an opportunity to consider the implications. In the meantime, I have no idea what you mean and it would be helpful if you could spell out in lay terms what you mean by a 'wrapper'. I have little doubt that whatever it is, it will make it increasingly impossible for anyone working on Scottish island articles to amend the template as may be needed from time to time. There is some very unfortunate history with this sort of thing and I apologise if I seem to be over-reacting.  Ben   Mac  Dui  14:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see now that you are just attempting to have the infobox deleted per the attempt a couple of years ago. No thanks. Ben   Mac  Dui  14:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You may see that; but if you do, it's a figment of your imagination. I also note that in that discussion, a request to see such a sandbox example as I am I developing was made. Made by you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A wrapper template is one which calls anther underlying, template. This template is already a wrapper, calling Infobox. I'm proposing instead that it call Infobox islands, in order to benefit from the automatic conversion in the latter, which I described above, and so that their layout and appearance are consistent. As for being "undiscussed", what do you think we are doing here? The proposed changes will not "make it increasingly impossible for anyone working on Scottish island articles to amend the template", and you are indeed over-reacting. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Undiscussed? I must have missed the discussion. I genuinely apologise if you think I am being unreasonable, but the Ukipification of this infobox, perhaps within WP Policy, but with scant regard for those who actually use it, is difficult to endure and I frankly lack the will right now to fight yet another battle of this kind. When you are part of a cultural minority it is often very hard not to see these things as straightforward rudeness and insensitivity rather than helpful. Ben   Mac  Dui  16:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What is wrong with adding the sovereign state and country to the infobox? Why would anyone oppose that? The other edits: I moved one field so that the subdivision fields (country and local authority) were in the same section, and then, since "island group" was in a lone section named "groupings", I moved it to a different section about geography. If you have a genuine reason to object, then revert. Rob984 (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Comparison
Main issue is the lack of a "Names" section. However, we can still modify the default template using child infoboxes, so I don't think it does "make it increasingly impossible for anyone working on Scottish island articles to amend the template". It does however ensure the template is consistent with other islands' infoboxes outside of Scotland. Rob984 (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. We have Template:Infobox Scottish island/testcases for the purpose of comparison; perhaps youd like to move your examples there? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

These examples are very helpful. However, something I need to make very clear is that I have no interest in this kind of ‘consistency’ for its own sake. What is interesting to me about these islands is their collective history yet remarkable uniqueness. I don’t think for a moment that they are in any way superior to any other archipelago but it gives me great pleasure to provide information to the world about this along with that an infobox that is a little different – that makes a statement about how these places are NOT the same as the Aluetian islands or the Scilly isles.

If you can provide a wrapper that has:
 * All the features of the existing infobox
 * No new and pointless features (such as time zone)
 * Is easy to amend if needed
 * Has something about it that identifies it as part of a series (such as the poor inoffensive [[Image:Lymphad3.svg|25px]] image.)

then fine. I honestly don’t care about the mechanics – but then as that is what he already had I don't know why we would need something new. All the best things I have been involved with herein have come from a sense of collaboration and I am keen to promote that if possible. However the Infobox UK place debacle has put me off editing mainland articles for good. Once something unhelpful is done with regard to meta templates it can be very hard, perhaps impossible, to undo. Ben  Mac  Dui  16:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Who is proposing "consistency for its own sake"? I'm interested in consistency (without scare quotes) for the sake of our users. Some of whom, BTW, will not know what timezone applies, and so rely on us as an encylopedia to tell them. Perhaps our mission to serve them can benefit from your desire to collaborate? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A problem is that we do not really know what our readers do and don't want. Nonetheless, it is very hard for me to imagine that adding exactly the same information to every infobox for every Scottish island is really helping anybody greatly. If a reader wants to know the timezone for Scotland or the UK that is generally only a link away. We don't put timezones in infoboxes for Dundee or Aberdeen, where you might have thought that information was of far more relevance for travellers and I can't see the point of doing so for tiny islands, most of which would require at least a day's travel from the UK point of origin in any case. I may be wrong but I have no recollection of any request for this information for any of the hundreds of island articles we have from a passing reader or at any of the numerous GAN or FAC discussions. In my view it is simply clutter. Ben   Mac  Dui  13:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We know from many web usability (and general design) studies that users benefit from consistency of layout and labelling. We have timezone information in many aritcles on cites and other settlements. But if that's a major issue, we could make it an optional paramter. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I have made all the parameters on this template work on template:Infobox Scottish island/sandbox, so the sandbox version is able to replace the current version without any modifications to articles using the template.

However, I have also added the conversion templates used at template:infobox islands to the current template.

So as far as I can see, the only reason to change the the wrapper version is for consistency.

I would prefer consistency, and I think the differences of the current template are not really helpful.

Rob984 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have much time right now - I have two options I suppose, I can look through all these undiscussed changes and amend those that I don't think work, or just revert them all. The above explanation does not make any sense to me. Could you rephrase it in a way that might be more understandable? Ben   Mac  Dui  08:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since your last edit (revision 645143725), I have done the following:
 * Changed order of "Political Geography" section to descend downwards from state to country to council area, to be consistent with other templates such as infobox settlement.
 * Moved the title on top of the infobox per Template:infobox recommendation:
 * There are two different ways to put a title on an infobox. One contains the title inside the infobox's border in the uppermost cell of the table, the other puts as a caption it on top of the table.
 * Text to put in the caption over the top of the table... For accessibility reasons, this is the most recommended alternative.
 * Added area km2 and area ha parameters alongside the existing area parameter. These automatically format and covert figures.
 * Added density km2 and density sqmi parameters alongside the existing population density parameter. These automatically format and covert figures.
 * The latter two were features available in Template:Infobox islands. As those features are now implemented in the existing template, there is less reason to change to the wrapper.
 * If you have an issue with any of those edits I am happy to self revert it for you.
 * Rob984 (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh and I also set all the images to 255px wide. Before they had different widths, so I change them all to 255px because the infobox is ~265px wide. This means they fit nicely with a small amount of padding. Rob984 (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I added flag and coat of arms fields. Currently these are only used at Shetland. Rob984 (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be better to add parameters for those to the generic template rather then shoe-horning them into an unrelated field. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Rob984; in the absence of any specific, reasoned, objections, I propose that we deploy this change. That said, I prefer to handle the local names as I had in this version, obviating the need for a child template. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, however using Template:native name template instead of Template:lang-xx. See British Isles and Ireland for example. Rob984 (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I will look into this at the weekend. Ben   Mac  Dui  08:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What happened with this? I can't see an edit where you did that, and the template is still not wrapping Infobox islands. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean this?
 * Ben MacDui prefers the current template over the wrapper version. So there's not consensus for that I guess.
 * Rob984 (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I was expecting an edit to the live template, not the sandbox. Consensus does not require unanimity, and it seems that Ben has not commented since your sandbox changes. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Region for coordinates
I was looking at the page Tanera Mòr which uses this template, and I notice that the coordinates link to GeoHack makes the call without the region parameter. Could the template be modified to include " " in the coordinates call? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what the problem is. If I click on the OS Co-ords inside the infobox, it leads to a GeoHack page with a GB option at right. On the other hand, clicking on the Co-ordinates at the top doesn't. The latter isn't part of the infobox.... Ben   Mac  Dui  17:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I hadn't spotted the separate coord coding as it was hidden at the bottom of the article.  I've added the region parameter now.  Sorry about the confusion. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrapper version done however...
The wrapper version is just about done (see Template:Infobox_Scottish_island/testcases) and I think it's pretty clear this template is unnecessary. The minor differences do no justify the existence of this template.

Unfortunately, the non-auto converted  and   have all been amened for cases of  and as such the fields have been deprecated and removed. To move this template over to the wrapper, we'd need to deprecate those field before hand.

If this template was moved over to the wrapper years ago, this would have been done. Hence the "maintenance burden" of having multiple near-identical templates.

Rob984 (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)