Template talk:Eyre Peninsula

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Australia: South Australia Eyre Peninsula is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. This template is supported by WikiProject South Australia.

Edits carrried out on 9 February 2020

@ScottDavis:, I have re-organised the template as follows:

1. The Joy Baluch AM Bridge has been moved to the new group called 'Infrastructure' because 'coastal features' is a group that I added in 2014 to cater for articles about natural features, i.e. bays, capes, peninsulas etc. BTW, the term is used on the SA Placename Gazetteer. Please note that Yorkeys Crossing is a ford, i.e. a natural feature until it is reworked by the SA Government.
2. The list of islands has been reduced to those located within bays, are connected to the mainland by land exposed at low tide and those islands that are 'close' to the shore.

Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cowdy001: No problems with that. I've added the other two east-west highways (Eyre and Birdseye), although I hesitated about Eyre Highway as it extends a lot further, but it is also an integral part of Eyre Peninsula's road network.

I discovered the template transclusion check tool and noticed a lot of mismatch between what is in the template, and which pages display it. Do you agree they should match? I got the "transclusion but no link" column down to zero (now up to ten islands) and only just started on the longer "link but no transclusion" list last night.

Cheers, --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the ten islands and trim some items from the list in the template. I think articles that "Link but (have) no transclusion" should have the template and the EP category. Taking into account that there are over 400 articles in the EP category, I think we should need to be either highly selective or we need to create some lists (either stand-alone or embedded in various articles) that can be linked from the template. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the township list should be trimmed, perhaps to a minimum population (eg 300 or 600?) unles there are strong historic reasons for formerly significant places. I'm not sure if the other categories have meaningful objective criteria for only including some of the entries - if one district council is in the template, they all should be, same for railways, you've already set stricter criteria for islands. I don't know if "protected areas" should be trimmed and renamed to just "National parks"? Can we find objective criteria for trimming the points, capes, bays and coves? --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottDavis: Ideally, the content of the template should be those articles that have an importance higher than 'low'. Re "towns" - as most of those listed were probably gazetted as 'government towns', I think that could be the criteria. I do not like the 'population' criteria because the template will need a five year review in order to remain relevant (BTW, localities do not need to be included as most of these should be in the relevant LGA templates).   Re "coastal features" - these could be removed and placed in a separate template which would then replace the EP template on those articles.  Re "protected areas" - I could create a redirect, i.e. 'List of protected areas on Eyre Peninsula' which could ultimately work as article not unlike List of protected areas in Adelaide. Re "islands", if there was an "overview" article about the subject (i.e. Islands of South Australia), all of these could be removed and that relevant content could be linked by two 'piped' links, 'western coast islands' and 'east coast islands'. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed the townships to current (2016) population > 275. That kept Lock in but dropped Iron Knob. I didn't do the reverse check to see if any should be added by that criteria that were missing. I'm OK if you want to (partial) revert. I like the idea of using the Importance scale, except that it is just shifting the problem (I think there are currently three articles that would qualify). --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no more comments at the moment. In the near future, I will have a look at some of the remedies that I have suggested above. RegardsCowdy001 (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is subsumed into the wider conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Australia#regional navboxes. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]