Template talk:Louisville, Kentucky

Creation
Steve's been wanting a template for Louisville, so I created one. Doing one based on Los Angeles, as he recommended, was not working, so I based it off the New York City one. I based the prominent neighborhoods on those most prominently mentioned in the corresponding article, although I knew the Highlands should have been mentioned. Any other considerations?--Bedford 20:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Falls of the Ohio
Should the Falls of the Ohio link be to the National Wildlife Conservation Area, or to the State Park?--Bedford 06:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would use the conservation area, although it's kind of like splitting hairs between the two. Perhaps once we have a parks template, or a parks portion of this one, the state park could be included.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 00:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Color change
Would there be any objection to giving this template a gold-like color rather than purple? I recently pulled the goldish color from the city's seal that I'm now using in WikiProject Louisville. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions
We may want to include neighborhoods outside of the original Louisville city limits, such as Fairdale. Also, we may want to reduce the size of the fonts used for the neighborhoods, else this template might get very thick. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I also think that neighborhoods should be seperated by whether they are in the old city limits or out in the county.
 * For example, we could rename "East side neighborhoods" to "East side neigborhoods: Old City" and add one for "East side neighborhoods: Suburbs" Angry Aspie 22:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good approach. We may also want to change what the bottom purple area covers... maybe just suburbs outside of Jefferson County.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 22:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

YUCK! That template is way too big. Sometimes too much information is worse than not enough. This qualifies.--Bedford 23:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably needs a smaller font. Beyond that, I don't see much "yucky" about it.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we need all those neighborhoods listed? I don't think so.  We lost prominent places of interests to outsides and in its place a bunch of unimportant neighborhoods.  The Los Angeles template doesn't have that many neighborhoods, and its 100x the size of Louisville. Who's ever going to find that template useful?--Bedford 00:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think so. Otherwise, let's scrap the template and go back to the drawing board.  No neighborhood is more "important" than another.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 00:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I reduced the font sizes and removed the miscellaneous items, as I'm afraid there's no way to objectively decide what those items should be, beyond the obvious Kentucky Derby. Also, it appears that we still have more neighborhoods and suburbs to add. Last, the bottom area should probably only show suburbs outside of Jefferson County. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at the misc. I chose:

1) Civil War -- Yep, this was subjective 2) Falls of the Ohio -- Seeing as how if it wasn't for this there would be no Louisville, especially not one that is 16th in size, I think the only thing problematic is choosign whether to use the State park or the National Wildlife 3) Fort Knox -- Worldwide famous, but need to be eliminated for the same reasons you were removing WP Louisville tags from Scott County 4) Hillerich & Bradsby -- Louisville Slugger is questionable??? 5) Kentucky Derby -- There's no debate on this 6) Water Tower -- National Historic Landmark. I had also thought of including the Marine Hospital, but that would almost require us putting EVERY NHL on it.--Bedford 01:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Louisville has many top-level articles that are deserving. If a list is not based on objective criteria, that becomes open to potential conflict in the future.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 01:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Idea: We may want to split this up into separate templates. The bottom line for a general Louisville template is it should link to its significant category/subpage articles, like what's on the first line. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Might not be bad at all. One for Neighborhoods, one for tourism, one for Southern Indiana--Bedford 01:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One for neighborhoods would still be thick, unless this is also split up into two or more templates.

This is way too big with all the neighborhoods... I don't think they're of that much interest (and I wrote most of the content in these articles). The Louisville places template was an effort to connect neighborhood articles in a useful way... I just haven't added it to all the articles yet. I'd support going back to what Louisville used to look like. --W.marsh 02:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I second this.--Bedford 02:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should go ahead and reduce it down to just the categories. We shouldn't list selected neighborhoods and suburbs, and miscellaneous, *unless* we come up with objective criteria for their selection.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 02:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be preferable for the time being. I only added the pre-today neighborhoods because the initial ones were kind of random. --W.marsh 02:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Prominent suburbs did have an objective criteria: 10,000+ population. AAA Tourbooks could give us prominent places of interests. That would be objective.--Bedford 02:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's what I was going to say. We could just list the X largest non-Louisville cities in the area. As for neighborhoods... it would be hard to have anything truly objective. We could do the largest by population I guess. But that would leave out Downtown. --W.marsh 02:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good... Categories + objectively prominent non-Louisville cities in the area, and keep it at just that for now. We might also be able to agree on a few super-obvious articles (what was in "Miscellaneous") to highlight as well, but I don't think it's imperative.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 02:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's break it up with a new template just for neighborhoods, and leave the old template as was. Angry Aspie 13:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be all right for the neighborhood lists as they were presented in this template to go into a template that would go into neighborhood articles. Louisville places is great, but a listing of all the Louisville neighborhoods shows another important context.  Yes, it's thick, but there are much thicker templates out there.  It can also be defaulted to hide if we choose.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 14:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just created Louisville places all as a start for you. Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 14:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To ease use of Louisville places all, I embedded it into the bottom of Louisville places. Looks pretty good in the neighborhood articles that already show that template.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 14:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Added two top subjects
I just added two top subjects.
 * 1) George Rogers Clark - founder of Louisville, Kentucky.  I think this is self-explanatory.
 * 2) KFC - an iconic company and brand that is essentially an ambassador for the city all around the world.  I included a link to its history article and to its founder Colonel Sanders.

I realize that we should want to keep this template section tight, but I realized that these two subjects were glaring omissions based on their importance to the city. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 10:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

On further thought, Muhammad Ali seems to be a good choice as a top subject as well, although maybe controversial. It seems to me that he's the city's favorite son based on his storied career as well as the things in the city that honor him. It's hard to think of a greater Louisville icon than Ali. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 10:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I also added L&N as a top subject due to being so key to the city's development. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Split of "Subject areas" section
When reviewing other key aspects of Louisville, I realized other subject areas and articles were missing, and then after adding them, I realized that a split of "Subject areas" was in order. I created History and Geography sections to capture those added articles. Please feel free to voice any concerns if I've done anything objectionable or just needs more adjustments. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Tidying up
I appreciate attempts to tidy up the template, but the recent tidying left dangling curly brackets and allowed subarticles (in parens) to wrap. Also, a category was removed from content categorization even though the template encapsulates content. I'm certainly open to making the template better, but tidying needs to not create new issues. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, I was a little too hasty in my last edit, the problems were caused by my cleanup script not allowing correctly for nowrap, which, thankfully, is very rare nowadays. Hope the new version is OK now. One of the joys of HLIST formatting is getting rid of ugly kludges like nowrap - HLIST still isn't perfect, mainly because there is no easy way of coping with older browsers, still in use, which are not standards-compliant. As a general rule, I prefer to get rid of nowrap, and put up with any niggles until the older browsers disappear.
 * On categorisation, templates don't logically belong in non-template categories at all, except those templates meant for use on non-content pages (talk, user, wikipedia, etc). So I remove content cats where it's not too much work. In this case it's easy, we can just transclude the template itself on the category page. That way we keep the template out of a cat where it doesn't belong, and it's better for our users looking at the category page, since they have the template readily accessible (it's quite common, BTW, for navboxes to be transcluded on category pages). In other cases, it might be better to put a category see also note on the cat page (this usually means more work, so I don't always do it).
 * Sorry for the little mess-up - on top of that my computer crashed when I was trying to save the cat page, hence the lack of an edit summary there. Regards, --NSH002 (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * HLIST doesn't keep subarticles (those in parens) on the same line as their parent articles, and so I think this new approach makes it a little harder on readers. But I have to admit that the code is technically tidier.  As for template categorization and transclusion in categories, I will try to see your side of it, simply because I'm not sure what guidelines have to say about these approaches (the way is was before vs. the way it is now).  On this too, I have to admit that more readers may be able to make use of this template now.  Thanks for your good faith effort at any rate.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 18:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When it was first introduced, HLIST did indeed prevent each item from wrapping – as long as you were using a modern browser – but it caused problems in older browsers. Some very good technical wikipedians tried very hard for a very long time to find work-arounds for the problem browsers, but in the end had to give up in frustration, which means that, currently, HLIST isn't working quite as intended, though it's still a lot better than what went before, and is essential for accessibility, see WP:ACCESS. On principle, it's best not to try to fix such problems at the individual page level (you'll never be able to fix them all anyway) when it should be being solved at a global level. It's possible someone might find a fix for the Navbox template that might mitigate the problem until IE8 dies. At least the problem will eventually go away, somehow. You could try nowrap begin at the beginning of the list with nowrap end at the end – I don't like it much, but it might improve the wrapping behaviour somewhat and at least it's better than wrapping individual items. --NSH002 (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)