Template talk:Hundreds of South Australia
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
breaking up the list
[edit]Hi Jabberjaw. Since when you complete entering this list it will have over 500 entries, do you think it would work to break it out to a row by county name as a title? That will make the whole template a bit taller, but possibly easier to navigate? --Scott Davis Talk 03:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Scott Davis - long time no chat. My original idea for this was an alphabetical list, and didn't realise that there were so many items to deal with. I am open to ideas, and I am also conscientious of visible template bloat, so how about collapsible alphabetical sub-sections to reduce the length of the list visible? Thanks. JabberJaw (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Jabberjaw: That could work. maybe the 500 names will turn out to look OK as a block, I don't know. If you haven't already seen it, have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject South Australia/Historic places which was broken out from Talk:Lands administrative divisions of South Australia by Donama. It's focused on the district councils, but there is overlap as many early district council boundaries aligned with hundred boundaries. I'm not sure if we will ever decide it's worth having separate articles for every hundred - many have significant overlap with a locality or district council or conservation park, so there is natural convergence on having less articles than one for each aspect of a place. --Scott Davis Talk 04:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- @ScottDavis: Ok - well the big question here then is which would be more useful to the reader - an alphabetised list of the entire state vs. a list by county? Most people in SA probably don't realise SA has counties, and if so, they are probably unaware of any of the hundreds linked to each county. The more I think about it, having the counties listed on the left, and their related hundreds listed to the right may be of most logical use (particularly for navigation within/between counties) - just as you originally proposed. If you still agree, I will look into reworking/evolving the template to that end. Thanks. JabberJaw (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- My major concern was simply being lost and overwhelmed by a block of over 500 names with no other information. I agree Counties are rarely relevant, but that was the only meaningful objective grouping I could think of. At the moment, some will be red, some will be their own article, some will be redirects to the enclosing County, some will be redirects to a locality or district council article, and the targets of the redirect have varying quality of information about the hundred at present. Cheers. --Scott Davis Talk 05:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Here is roughly what it looks like with all of them sorted by county. It might look better to just list all alphabetically as there are 47 subgroups here. @Jabberjaw: Donama (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC) User:Donama/TestHdTemplate
- My major concern was simply being lost and overwhelmed by a block of over 500 names with no other information. I agree Counties are rarely relevant, but that was the only meaningful objective grouping I could think of. At the moment, some will be red, some will be their own article, some will be redirects to the enclosing County, some will be redirects to a locality or district council article, and the targets of the redirect have varying quality of information about the hundred at present. Cheers. --Scott Davis Talk 05:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- @ScottDavis: Ok - well the big question here then is which would be more useful to the reader - an alphabetised list of the entire state vs. a list by county? Most people in SA probably don't realise SA has counties, and if so, they are probably unaware of any of the hundreds linked to each county. The more I think about it, having the counties listed on the left, and their related hundreds listed to the right may be of most logical use (particularly for navigation within/between counties) - just as you originally proposed. If you still agree, I will look into reworking/evolving the template to that end. Thanks. JabberJaw (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Jabberjaw: That could work. maybe the 500 names will turn out to look OK as a block, I don't know. If you haven't already seen it, have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject South Australia/Historic places which was broken out from Talk:Lands administrative divisions of South Australia by Donama. It's focused on the district councils, but there is overlap as many early district council boundaries aligned with hundred boundaries. I'm not sure if we will ever decide it's worth having separate articles for every hundred - many have significant overlap with a locality or district council or conservation park, so there is natural convergence on having less articles than one for each aspect of a place. --Scott Davis Talk 04:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Donama: Wow - Thanks for your work to whip up this template - Yes - it is somewhat unwieldy in an uncollapsed state, but 2 solutions here would be to: (1) edit out all of the "hundred of" phrases, which should allow some rows to shorten; and, (2) include collapsible groups to divide it up into say 5-6 sections. I am happy to do the formatting legwork if it's ok for you for me to copy/paste your table from your test page. Thanks. JabberJaw (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Jabberjaw:, go for it. I really don't have the time at present, but knew it would be quick to make a little demo version. It will probably take about 45 minutes to manually edit all the remaining "Hundred of" out. If I'm not mistaken, @ScottDavis: has some kind of tool that helps him do that kind of thing. Donama (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Done @Jabberjaw and Donama: nothing really fancy, but yes, regular expressions and GNU Emacs make these kinds of edits much quicker than manual. Thanks for doing the hard work so I only had to tidy it up. --Scott Davis Talk 03:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. Just for fun, it probably looks better with all 550 inline as it's much smaller! Donama (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC) User:Donama/TestHdTemplateAlpha
- Yes, that is much smaller. I'm still not sure it's helpful as a navbox, it's just too big to be helpful. There's already a table at Lands administrative divisions of South Australia#List of hundreds. Maybe it's better to just break that out to List of hundreds in South Australia as it has a little more information and can be sorted several ways. I wonder if wikipedia tables can also be filtered (to show only the ones proclaimed in 1851 in the County of Light for example). Searching wikidata is a somewhat scarier challenge. --Scott Davis Talk 04:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Tend to agree on its limited utility. Just before I go though, pasting in another experiment... Donama (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC):