Template talk:Million-plus agglomerations in India
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Gamebuster in topic RfC Navigation template beauty contest
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Copied from Template talk:Million-plus cities in India
editThe city of Sagar is listed in the Million-plus agglomeration in India, which is a wrong entry. If the reference is not available, this entry should be removed from the Million-plus agglomerations in India. Amod Bhagwat 08:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab 18 (talk • contribs)
RfC Navigation template beauty contest
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Over the last couple of months there have been three versions of this template, with different layouts. Which layout do we like best (and why)? Batternut (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
The choices
edit- The ordered list here
- The geographic zoned list here
- The alphabetic state/UT list here
- Some other layout?
Survey
edit- the geographic list is my preference - more informative; and less of a space hog. Batternut (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
- Could the ordered list be made to take up less space? Perhaps the rank number could be removed, because it is pretty useless to know that Nashik is precisely 29 out of 53 on the list. If so, this would be my choice. If you go to a page about a agglomeration, you can find the information about which state / region it is located in pretty easily, so this information is not necessary in the template. On the other hand, the approximate ranking (e.g. Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, and Chennai are still the four biggest) is pretty interesting. OtterAM (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- The rank numbers are liable to get out of date so I'd be happy to ditch them, but it would introduce the ambiguity of whether to read left-to-right first or top-to-bottom first. Batternut (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Geographic list with links to the zonal councils seems more intuitive than the other formats. I don't know the states of India and I see little value in an ordered ranking. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- Geographic list. Coming from the RFC, I believe the geographic list is superior because it provides more information in a more compact form than the other suggestions. I don't anything about the geography of India, but from that template, I can tell that Aurangabad is in Western India. The other templates do not provide such information, knowing the state it's in doesn't help me if I don't know where the state is located within India, and an ordered list doens't provide any extra information at all. Gamebuster (Talk)║Contributions) 05:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.