Template talk:Geobox Settlement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been suggested that this page or section be merged with Template talk:Infobox City. (Discuss)

[edit] Conversion Precision

Great job on this whole series of geoboxes, a big step forward over the more widely used boxes. I've been using Georbox Town on some pages a have a question about the precision of conversion from imperial to metric. Is there a way to change the metric output so that it does not round to a whole number? For example, when I imput 1.8 for the imperial value, it returns 5km, however is the metric precision matched the imperial, it would more accurately output 4.7km. Thanks. VerruckteDan 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IE 7.0 Layout Issue

Hey, I normally use Firefox and the layout is fine in taht browser, but today when using IE I noticed an issue. The infobox doesn't allow text to wrap around it if there is right oriented picture before the text. See West Chester, Pennsylvania for an example of what I'm talking about. VerruckteDan 19:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encountered Issues

I switched an Springfield, Illinois from Infobox City to Geobox Town, but encountered two issues:

If one chooses a size for the map, it is left aligned, rather than centered. I presume this is a side effect of getting a locator to work, but it seems like there should be a way to center the map if not using a locator.
The page includes Template:Geolinks-US-cityscale, which also puts coordinates in the upper right corner. It is my opinion that Geolinks-US-cityscale should not be doing this, but changing it would probably break many pages. I'm not sure of a good way to resolve this.Skeetidot 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

David H. Flint 19:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

For pages that I've added the Geobox Town template, I remove the Geolinks-US-cityscale template as the links it provides can be accessed from the coordinates ljnk in the upper right or the coordinates link in the info itself. Having it for a 3rd time at the bottom of the page is redundant. Additionally, I've always felt the bottom of the page location wasn't that great anyway. I much prefer the upper right hand link, it stands out and is uick and easy to follow. VerruckteDan 20:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, but I think having the external links at the bottom too makes sense. Users may miss the title coordinates, be unsure what clicking them would do, or be uncertain which sources to use on the following page. Geolinks-US-cityscale provides a selected list of some of the most useful links in a way that can be easily changed, increasing usability and discoverability. I can see the argument for Geolinks-US-cityscale including the title coordinates, however I think that it makes the template unfocused. Geolinks-US-cityscale could focus on external links at the bottom, while geoboxes or a seperate Coor title can handle title coordinates. David H. Flint 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename to Geobox Settlement

Might it be a good idea to rename this Geobox Town template to be the more generic name Geobox Settlement? People might not understand why places other than towns are using the template; if it is renamed, then people will more easily understand that this template is meant for all types of human settlement. I had a problem like this when I converted all the town articles in Massachusetts to use the Infobox City template. Lots of people didn't understand that that template was designed for all types of settlements and not just cities, and they reverted my edits. So, I suggest renaming the master template to be Geobox Settlement, and then making Geobox City, Geobox Town, etc., all redirect to the Geobox Settlement one. By the way, I like the idea of these Geobox templates, as I am in general a big fan of standardization. --CapitalR 23:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be a good idea. {{Infobox Officeholder}} does a similar thing, with Infobox President, Infobox Chancellor, Infobox Mayor, etc. redirecting to the main template. VerruckteDan 23:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, I'll do that in the UTC evening. – Caroig (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mayor / leader_type...

It seems to be since you're going for consistency with this template, the field 'mayor' should actually be named 'leader', since all supporting fields are leader_type, etc. and not mayor_type. Then the field isn't named towards a specific type of leadership. --MattWright (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

All fields leader_something are aliased to mayor_something (thus also mayor_type) even though the legend fails to mention this (I'm always way behind with the documentation, sorry). I know it goes against consistency but … on the other side for smaller (I daresay most) settlements only one leader, typically mayor, is applicable and the blank templates are then less confusing for the editor. If you look at them they have mayor in the short versions and leader in the longer ones. – Caroig (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates...

Can we make it so that the coordinates that are shown in this take advantage of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Parameters. For instance, I think population should be placed in parenthesis after the city type, city(pop) and other things should be able to be added, such as location_region, so that region parameter can be filled in, location_scale, so the scale parameter can be filled in, etc. --MattWright (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The documenation was a few steps behind here too. There was an undocumented (shame on me) parameter coordinates_type which was by default assigned city and which got into the mapping template as type:city, i.e. with prepended type:. I didn't know about the other parameters. I made an upgrade, type: is now not prepended so you must put it into coordinates_type as type:city. This way you can use any parameter. And the template newly adds the population (if this field is not blank) in brackets at the end of the link. See Springfield, Illinois. This article made use of the previous coordinates_type parameter, I upgraded it to the new format. This feature was a good idea, thanks, hope you find it satisfactory now. – Caroig (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work! -MattWright (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linking units

One thing we had done in Infobox City which is nice is that only the very first display of the unit is linked. For instance, only the first mi² or km² or ft or m that appears would be linked to the unit page. The rest would just be shown in plain text. This cuts down on duplicate and unnecessary links in the text. Would that be fixable? --MattWright (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that shouldn't be that difficult. The template uses many other subtemplates, among them some which deal with the unit conversion, e.g. {{Unit length}}, so an extra parameter would have to be added there. But it's just rather low on my pririty list. I created all this Geobox stuff as I didn't find suitable templates for putting into aricles I wanted and still want to write. The result is that I spend most of my Wikipedia time dealing with all six Geoboxes, so I'd like slow down a bit as they are fairly matured and spend more time creating articles which I find more relaxing.

As of merging with Infobox City, the initial version of Geobox Town could accept nearly all fields from Infobox City as aliases to its own fields, but since it seemed then nobody was interested I removed them and I don't want to put them back. The field names in Infobox City are extremely chaotic and sooner or later someone will have to change them anyway. – Caroig (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for your edits, good idea. I would especially appreciate any help with the legend, it's written from the point of their creator who knows every detail about them and thus they are pobably not very clear for someone who tries to use them. – Caroig (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't worry about accepting the names as aliases, if one template was chosen over the other, a bot could probably go through and rename all the fields appropriately... The main problem is we now have two templates that do almost the same thing, when it would be nicer to have everyone focused on a single template. Thanks for all your work on this. --MattWright (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize it would be better to have just one version. I stated my reason why I created a completely different one elsewhere (inconsistent field names, broken layout, never ending changes …). Actually, {{Geobox River}}, {{Geobox Mountain Range}}, {{Geobox Mountain}}, {{Geobox Protected Area}}, which all had automated unit conversion support before it was added to Infobox City, were created before this one. I just wanted a similar template for places I edit and the whole Geobox system was designed with the idea to enable easy creation of similar templates. All six Geobox offer the same functionality, same field names, same layout … BTW, many countries have their own city/town templates so it's difficult to say there are just these two. – Caroig (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] map_locator_y

This does not seem to be working properly. If you go to edit Denver, Colorado and switch the map parameters to:

| map = US_Locator_Blank.svg
| map_caption = Location of Denver in [[USA]]
| map_locator_x = 35.15
| map_locator_y = 29.5
| map1 = Map_of_Colorado_highlighting_Denver_County.svg
| map1_caption = Location of Denver in [[Colorado]]

That will cause the dot to appear where Denver is. The problem, is that where the dot appears is actually about 45.8% down the image, not 29.5%. But if I put in the actual percent (which is 45.78) then it appears way too far south. Would it not be better to have these parameters be actual pixel counts instead of percents? Or can the height percentage actually be calculated correctly (how can you determine what the total height will be, since only the width of 256 is being specified)? It seems to be calculating the height of the locator using an image height of 256, but that is not always the case (only the width is defined as 256). I didn't save these changes in the article, not sure if the entire USA map makes sense, but I wanted to point out the error. --MattWright (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems the system works correctly. The thing is, both percents are related to the map width. It is very versatile this way because you can simply adjust the map width (using the map_size parameter, see Denver, Colorado/sandbox) and the locator dot is still placed correctly. You don't see the map_size parameter in your template, because you probably copied it from another page. It is, however, recommended to use a blank blank template from the the bottom of the Template:Geobox Town page which contains most fields available in the template - this way other users can simply supply additional data without looking at the documentation first.

The locator dot system is even capable of placing the locator dot automatically based just on the coordinates of the settlement, but there must exiss a map in orthogonal projection and it must be calibrated (Category:Geobox location), see e.g. West Chester, Pennsylvania. The USA map, however, makes use of the conical projection - unfurtunatelly, Wikipedia software doesn't support trigonometric functions which would be required for calculating the dot position.

I don't usually do it myself but but you might want to read the Category:Geobox documentation - the Geoboxes are pretty complex and contain many quite new features. – Caroig (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, as of your suggestion to rename the template to Geobox Settlement, I'm gonna do that soon, I was just too busy this week. – Caroig (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW II, I guess having the USA map in the template makes sense, not so much for US citizens of course but for readers from other countries who usually aren't familiar with the locations of US states. – Caroig (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies Caroig. I suppose that makes sense regarding them both keying off of map width since you won't know map height at the time of the template call. Also, I wasn't the one recommending Geobox Settlement, and don't really care what the template is called, as long as it does its job. :) As for using the blank template, I actually just converted our Infobox City into Geobox Town, and didn't include the unused fields partly because I don't want to encourage everything to be filled (such as image_caption) in unless people have a good reason to do so. If it's important, I can add them all in, or copy the blank template into it. I have been trying to learn some of this stuff from the docs and from looking at the template source, but it seems every template includes about 10 other Geobox templates (over exaggeration), so it has a steep learning curve. --MattWright (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, would you mind if I added a parameter like map_sidebyside that would put the two maps next to each other instead of above and below? Then I could shrink the two maps to take up less room in the infobox with parameters:

| map = US_Locator_Blank.svg
| map_size = 140
| map_caption = Location of Denver in USA
| map_locator_x = 35.15
| map_locator_y = 29.5
| map1 = Map_of_Colorado_highlighting_Denver_County.svg
| map1_size = 110
| map1_caption = Location of Denver in Colorado

Also, is there any reason that both cannot be locator maps which would allow the user to determine whether to place the locator map first or second, or in some cases use two locator maps? --MattWright (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this template should be generally easier to use the Infobox City because it has consistently named fields which always work the same way. E.g. compared to Infobox City you don't have to fill in such fields as country_type, state_type etc. - they have a default value, however, you can redefine them if you wish. There are also many advanced functions and yes, these have rather steep learning curve.

Why are there so many subtemplates? There's not just Geobox Town but 5 more Geoboxes which use them, it's much easier to perform any changes, keep them up-to-date create other Geoboxes, the subtemplates create something like a Geobox "framework" … As of putting the blank templates and erasing fields, I think deleting fields which are not relevant for given settlement is OK but I'd leave the fields which someone might use if/when they find appropriate data. I get many requests in which users ask for some fields which they don't see in the used template because they had been erased. (MOst users, incuding me, usually don't bother reading the docs.)

Both maps can make use of the locator dot system. If the docs say otherwise it's just because I'm always way behind in updating the docs (shame on me here), both maps can use both locator systems in all Geoboxes. As of having both maps side by side, that seems reasonable but that might be more difficult to implement beacuse the subtemplates don't support this. If it gets implemented, it should preferably be done on the subtemplate level so that other Geoboxes might make use of it.

If you make any substantial changes to the template, please try them first on a sandbox page (I usually use Template:Geobox Town/Sandbox) where we might discuss them. I might have a look at it tomorrow, it's nearly midnight here and I'm, oh, so exhausted. – Caroig (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geobox location

Caroig, there is now a locator map for the state of Illinois (Illinois Locator Map.PNG) just as there is for Pennsylvania. Could you calibrate a Geobox location file for the Illinois map or explain to me the principle behind the calibration so that I could do it myself? VerruckteDan 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Done: {{Geobox location Illinois}}. I've checked it at Springfield, Illinois, seems OK. I haven't saved it, I didn't know if you wanted to use there or not, I usually don't edit places I do dot know anything about ;-) Actually, I call it calibration - seems as if I use some highly sofisticated method, well, I don't. You just need to input the coordinates (in decimal format, with negative values for the western and southern hemispehere) of the top-left and bottom-right corner of the map. You can easily get them from e.g. Google Earth, it can display countie's (seems not to be the right spelling here ?) boundaries when zoomed in, and the ratio between the pixel height and width of the map. The values don't need to be that precise, I usually adjust them a bit a few times to get the first location placed correctly. There's some documentation at Category:Geobox location but probably not satisfactory.

I haven't had much time for Wikipedia recently. I feel the documentation for Geoboxes is rather bad and out-to-date and I should do something about it. There's a general documenation for Geoboxes but I guess it should somehow transclude to every Geobox documentation page. Any ideas? – Caroig (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and the explanation of how you do it. I had read the documentation, but was curious how you came up with the coordinates, and now I know it just invovles some trial and error. I can try to help with some of the documentation, as I see that going a long way in demonstrating the versatility of these templates.

I was thinking of experimenting with a new Geobox template for bridges, based around the various components you've created. Infobox bridge has started to show its age and I think bridge articles could benefit from the cleaner look of Geobox, the intigration of the coordinates into the title, the auto unit conversersion and particularly the locator map feature, as so few bridges have maps identifying their location. What's your opinion on this idea? Thanks. VerruckteDan 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I designed the Geobox system to allow exactly this … relatively easy creation of new Geoboxes. The firts one in this series was {{Geobox River}} and all subsequent Geoboxes were created by copying the coode and more or less changing some field names and adding some new. I'm planning to add some more, one for buildings, one for caves (someone requested that one) and I'd only be happy if other users some more. There's one problem though, and that is the lack of any decent documentation on the system as such.

I guess you can take code from e.g. {{Geobox Settlement}} and start there. The subtemplate which might be the most confusing is {{Geobox row}} … you can design the new template without these at first and add them later when the fields and their names are consolidated. This subtemplate just sets the horizontal lines between "blocks" in the template. The first parameter is a list of all parameters that can go before the given one in the "block", the second one are all parameters that can go after it.

I'll try and help you with any issues if I'm available … but there's some time gap between us so my responses might not be that prompt and I might not be at the computer this weekend at all, there's a family gathering. – Caroig (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great. I'll mess around in a sandbox, see what I can put together. I've been slowly learning the coding behind templates and hopefully this will give me a chance to use some of that (and learn a lot more). If I have any questions/problems, I'll let you know, and of course, no rush on the answers. Prague is 7 hours ahead of New Orleans, you have to sleep sometimes. Haha. Thanks for your help. VerruckteDan 20:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So, a new issue with the locator map just crept up. I've been expanding the use on Pennsylvania municipalities and its worked great in the southern part of the state. Today, I moved to some northern towns and the dots are being placed on the correct longitudinal line, but they're showing up too far south for latitude. See Eaton Township, Pennsylvania for an example. Compare the dot location and the location of the township on the county map at Wyoming County. Could you provide any insight that you have? VerruckteDan 00:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It might simply be the top parameter in {{Geobox location Pennsylvania}} needs some adjustment. I guess I tested the precision on one location only, probably someplace well in the south, that's why no one has noticed so far. So if there's a location as north as possible within the state, you might use it to correct the top parameter. – Caroig (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Water percentage

Caroig, I tried to add a new parameter to show the percentage of area covered by water, a common piece of infomration on many US infoboxes. I successfully inserted the parameter. However, I also tried to set it up as an optional auto-calculating field like population density. I used the density coding as a point of reference, but so far have not been able to figure out what's not working. If you could offer any assistance, I'd appreciate it. I'm using Allens Grove, Township, Mason County, Illlinois as a test article. Thanks. VerruckteDan 17:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added the area_water_percentage field/switch. It's a good idea, especially the auto parameter. Your code was OK, with just a small omission, to get the percentage you needed to multiply the result by 100, otherwise the round 0 function rounded the result from say 0.1 to zero … I only added area_percentage_round because I guess you would set different rounding precission to the percentage than to the area figures.

Perhaphs the water percentage can be calculated everytime the area_water parameter is set, without the need for the switch at all. Perhaps it could be defined (with a switch) for every area field. I'm not saying it should be so, these are just ideas that popped into my mind.

The third map seems is OK too, we might want to put into the docs a preferred order: country/state/county (or whatever) or county/state/country so that they are used consistently. – Caroig (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geobox location is not working

It looks like the Geobox location dots have vanished. I can't see them on the Danish material (e.g. Fredericia) nor the Czech (Pilsen). Could it have something to do with the recent upgrade of Tidy? (see WP:VP/T) This upgrade has made the software much less tolerant towards slight errors in the code, e.g. if an html tag isn't closed correctly. Valentinian ^{T / C} 19:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate coordinate links

Could somebody please take a peek at the infoboxes used on Fredericia and Roskilde? For some odd reason, a duplicate coordinate link appears very prominently in the top-left corner of these articles. The link seems to be related to the infobox, as it disappeared when I tried to change the value of one of the infoboxes' geographical coordinates from degree+minute to degree+minute+seconds. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the duplicate coordinates, which were caused by the use of {{coor title dm}}. However, the infobox is putting the coordinates in an odd place, at the start of the body text, rather than on the title line. Andy Mabbett 21:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I know about the other template, and it was actually my plan to keep the {{coor title dm}} until this bug had been fixed. The bug is in the infobox; if it contains geographical coordinates in DMS format, the link will turn up correctly in the top-right corner, but it turns up very dominating in the top-left corner if the coordinates are entered in DM rather than DMS format. Valentinian ^{T / C} 23:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Some changes were made a few days ago to the coordinate template embedded in the Geobox templates. I believe this is the source of the bug, as it previous displayed properly with decimal coordinates. I've left a message with Caroig, he's the expert when it comes to the Geobox templates, so hopefully he can quickly find and correct this issue. VerruckteDan 14:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Should be fixed now (some pages still will show the coordinates in the wrong place, when the Wikipedia cache is emptied they should be OK). This was caused by a wrong template call, the decimal values actually set that. I hadn't checked the new template carefully enough. Sorry for the inconvenience. – Caroig (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As my boss once said to me: "as long as you keep making mistakes, I know that you're actually working." :) Thanks for fixing it. Valentinian ^{T / C} 18:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to use this geobox for municipalities in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, but since the municipalities contain the Mapit-US-cityscale template (which places its own coordinates), the geobox is placing duplicate coordinates on top of the existing set. I have the geobox coordinates commented out (which means I also had to turn off the pushpin map) for my sample Aspinwall, Pennsylvania. Since I don't want to get rid of the Mapit-US-cityscale that links to street maps on Google Maps, Live Local, etc, or the pushpin map of the municipality, is there any way for the geobox to test if there are already coordinates there and only add them if there aren't any?Skeetidot 05:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Skeet, I'm glad to see you're interested in the Geobox, I think it's a really great template. I've added the Geobox to the municipalities in Berks, Chester, Delaware and Montgomery Counties and also municipalities in Delaware and Louisiana. Others have been adding them to Illinois municipalities. In all cases, the "Mapit-US-cityscale" has been removed as the link provided by the title coordinates sends you to the same page as the main link of the "Mapit-US-cityscale". While the title link does require an additionally click to get to the Google Map or Live Local map, the general consensus among editors using the Geobox is that the benefits of the Geobox (including the auto title coordinates and locator map) outweigh the need for the direct link to Google Maps etc provided by "Mapit-US-cityscale". Let me know what you think and I'll be more than happy to help you with any other questions or in implementing this template in Allegheny County. VerruckteDan 22:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dan, maybe I didn't quite understand this too well. Here is my concern. If I am to removed te Mapit, which puts the Wikipage on Google Earth, if I remove it, does the geoboxes still add them to Google Earth? Or is this something that only Mapit does? I kinda like using Google Earth and being able to click some of the locations there that link back to the Wikipedia for information. Just want to make sure on this part.--Kranar drogin 06:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Kranar, the Geobox has been updated to incorporate Template:Coord with has allows programs like Google Earth to parse the information. So the short answer is yes, the Geobox minus the Mapit should still show up in Google Earth. However, I just checked Google Earth, and none of the PA or LA articles using the Geobox are showing up (even though they were last time I used Google Earth). Not sure if I'm just being an idiot at this time of night or if something was changed that adversely affected the Geobox. Can you check and see if places like West Chester, Pennsylvania or Chester, Pennsylvania are showing up in Google Earth. You may also want to review Template talk:Geobox coor to see the discussion about updating the Geobox coordinates to allow links in Google and such. If it is indeed not working properly, Andy Mabbett would probably be able to help, he's very involved with the Coord template. Hope that helps. VerruckteDan 06:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither of those places are showing up. A few are showing up like Widener University, Swarthmore College, and Secane, Pennsylvania among others. Some of the places I just removed Mapit from in Illinois are still showing up in Illinois, but they aren't using the updated coords that I used in the geobox (maybe it takes a few days for them to update?).--Kranar drogin 14:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not really sure what the answer is since nothing appears to be showing up right now. The discussion on Template talk:Geobox coor indicates the change was made after testing to make sure it worked properly. so as to why its not showing up in Google Earth.... I still think the best way to get a final answer on this is to talk to Andy Mabbett. Who should leave him a message, me or you? VerruckteDan 14:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea who that even is. Go ahead and let him know the problem that we have been talking about here. Maybe Google Earth has to update, I really don't know.--Kranar drogin 14:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

VerruckteDan, Thanks for the advice. I'm going to start implementing geoboxes on all of the non-city municipalities in Allegheny County (although I guess I could do all but Pittsburgh, since I added those). Since I agree with you, the "Mapit-US-cityscale" has the same information as clicking on the coordinates, I'm going to remove the "Mapit-US-cityscale" from the municipality articles as I add the geoboxes. From reading some of the discussion on geoboxes, it seems that they're more used on small towns and municipalities, rather than on major cities. So, I'm not going to change Pittsburgh, unless there's a consensus to do so.Skeetidot 20:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I added Geobox Settlement to Aspinwall, Pennsylvania. I'm making images like the one showing Aspinwall in Allegheny County for all of the municipalities. Since I want to batch upload them, I'm putting them on Wikimedia Commons using Wikimedia Commonplace. The only free text field I added was school district. Any other ideas? Check out the Aspinwall, Pennsylvania article and let me know what you think. Skeetidot 01:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. I honestly don't get it. I'm no huge fan of the mapit template, but regardless of that, I don't see why this template bothers printing the coordinates outside of its infobox at all. It seems pointless, given that it prints them again just a few lines down, so close by. I'd say just the unneeded duplication of the coordinates from this template and be done with it. This isn't all that terrible hard. Again, this isn't anything personal - I think the mapit template's links to myriad commercial sites is at least slightly onerous, but I just honestly don't see the point of this template printing the coordinates twice, with or without mapit. Got here through Mount Carmel, Illinois, which was seeing similar issues today until I commented out mapit temporarily. MrZaius^talk 05:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding a duplicate line of code ({{coor}}) at the bottom of a page sounds innocently enough, but the problem is that people use bots to add these geo-coordinates without checking if a coordinate link is already present in the infobox further up the page. I've cleaned up several articles where a helpful bot had added coordinates that either differed from the ones shown in the infobox or were just incorrect. Wikipedia is not affiliated with Google Earth so if Google Earth can't read the coordinates, then that might be a concern for Google Earth but not one for us. What if Google Earth has X competitors a few years from now? Should we begin adding a different lines of code for each such website just to be helpful? That can't be our concern. However, if the infobox code can be adapted to make these data more easily readable by Google then by all means, but we shouldn't begin adding duplicate code that increases the risk of errors and contradicting information just to be helpful to an external website. Valentinian ^{T / C} 08:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinates on Two Lines

Could we put the coordinates on two lines? For all of the Berks County municipalities I've seen and the ones I'm working on for Allegheny County (Aspinwall), only the "W" appears on the second line. Could we break it so the latitude is on one line and the longitude on the other?Skeetidot 21:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Locator Map Point Location

On the PA locator maps, I noticed the point seems to be a little further south than it should be. The lat/longs are correct (I checked them in Google Earth). It seemed OK for other articles, like Aleppo Township, though... Look at Baldwin Borough and Baldwin Township for examples of the points that seem to be too far south. You can see their actual location on the map showing the municipality's location in Allegheny County. Skeetidot 05:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem might be in the calibration for that particular map. Please check Template:Geobox location Pennsylvania and try to make some adjustments, even the slightest change can have quite a substantial effect on the location dot placement. – Caroig (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Skeet, the calibration of the maps is not an exact science (well, I haven't found a way to make them an exact science). I set up this sandbox page when I calibrated the PA locator map. I picked locations in each of the 4 corners of the state to make sure the changes were as accurate as possible in all locations. I learned the hard way that a map may display the dots accurately in the south but not in the north, if the calibration isn't precise enough. Anyway, if you're inclined to tewak the PA locator map, feel free to check the accuracy of changes with my sandbox. VerruckteDan 12:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add an etymology field

I think it'd be beneficial to add a etymology parameter to the Geobox. Perhaps located with the nickname and motto. Any thoughts on this? VerruckteDan 15:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be beneficial, and with the nickname and motto is a better place that at the bottom where the free field puts them. However, I can see name origins getting long and I don't want to a lot of prose into the geoboxes. I only added 3 so far (for ones I was able to find online: one named for a person and two from foreign languages. For the person, I kept it to the person's name and a very brief description of who that person was (see Baldwin Township, Pennsylvania). For the language origins, I used the format <language name with link> for, <"English translation"> (for an example, see Bellevue, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania). If the text gets too long, I noticed the Time Zone area gets messed up, so I had to add a <br> to fix it for Ben Avon, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

All the details being said though, I definitely support adding etymology! Skeetidot 22:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree there could be issues with lengthy names and perhaps some general guidelines should be developed. I like Skeetidot's examples as a possible foundation for these guidelines. If a longer description for a name's origin is necessary it can be placed in the main text of the article. VerruckteDan 23:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm generally against putting more and more extra fields into the Geoboxes. But I somehow like the idea of an etymology field which can be used in every template of the Geobox series, in the style suggested by Skeetidot in her examples. I agree there would have to be some guidelines and safeguards so that users don't put lengthy prose in the Geoboxes. Any ideas where and how the field should be displayed, how it should be named? I'll take care of the coding. – Caroig (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

First first impression is still to include it with the motto and nicknames, formated the same way as those 2 parameters. The only other location that I think makes some sense would be with the "established" parameter, however this seems to bury the information in a part of the Geobox that is not as logical as with the name related parameter. Maybe try these in a sandbox? VerruckteDan 22:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology draft

I've added an etymology field. It's name is simply etymology, plus the usual stuff (_type, _label, _note). It gets displayed above the motto and nickname fields, centered, not italicized. I haven't put it in the docs yet as it is only a draft and subject to change. Sandbox version: Bellevue. Suggested guidelines:

no lengthy prose, just e.g. old English for Ford

– Caroig (talk)

It looks good to me. Were you thinking of putting the guidelines in the documentation? VerruckteDan 04:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I'd first like to agree on them as well as on the formatting and placement of the field and put it in the documentation when it is a final version. If you have any ideas about further guidelines, please add them above. My idea would be a few guidelines plus examples. – Caroig (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I guess the field name can remain etymology, it's clear enough. As of formatting and placement, I'll play with it, but it should be someplace near the top, where the location name is displayed. The only unclear think is the guidelines. In Europe the name origin is often unclear and/or there exist too many theories so I don't think the field should be used here. As of US, where the origin of a name is usually traceable, what are the possibilities? I guess it can come from another language (French, various Indian languages), then I guess the line should go something like "French for beaver" and the field label could remain the default Name origin (better idea for the label?). The place can also be named after a person, then the label might be changed to Named for or Named after (via assigning it to the etymology_type parameter). I would probably prefer just the name, wikilinked (actually, it will get wikilinked automatically if an article of the same name exist), without title as in Baldwin Township, Pennsylvania - one can check who the person was by following the link. I'd like to get some guidelines clear so that people don't mess up with this field and so that we get a consistent use. – Caroig (talk) 09:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright so let's start laying out some guidelines:

Etymology Type	"etymology_type" Parameter	"etymology" Parameter
Foreign Language	Name origin (default)	terre bonne, French for good earth
Person	Named for	Thomas Jefferson
Place	Named for	Red River
Multiple sources	Name origin	Penn, William Penn and sylvania, Latin for woods

These are the most likely that come to mind right now. What other possibilities can others think of? VerruckteDan 22:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the Bellevue example! My only thoughts now are that a name could come from multiple sources (as in Pennsylvania for William Penn and "woods", i.e. Penn's woods). Sorry I haven't updated any municipalities lately, I was out of town last week... Skeetidot 14:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Bellevue example is similar to the listing in the table, except I added the phrase in the foreign language. I think having the original spelling/wording is beneficial to demonstrate the differences between the original and the "Americanized" version. You also bring up an interesting point for PA's naming, perhaps along the lines of the new example I'm adding to the table. VerruckteDan 14:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology field added

The etymology field has been added to the official documentation, including the examples. I'll add the etymology field to all other Geoboxes, I really like the idea. I've updated the main Bellevue article to make use of the new field. – Caroig (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You're one step ahead of me. I was going to suggest the addition of this code to the other Geoboxes, so I'll leave that to you. VerruckteDan 18:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Geobox_Lousiana...

Template:Geobox_Lousiana... has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. There have been 3 off-shoot templates created from this template that I placed up for deletion. Since they are newly created off-shoots of this infobox, the editors here should probably have some input at the TfD. Regards, — MJCdetroit 19:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geobox Design

I was looking at infoboxes for cities and countries and while I like how the geobox is "smarter", especially with adding the locator maps. However, I wanted to make some recommendations on the geobox's appearance.

Coordinates: The "W" from the coordinates almost always falls onto the next line. Could we make the coordinates smaller as with or move them to a different location, Clairton, Pennsylvania? Maybe they could be centered above the maps?
Headings: I wish we could do something to illustrate headings like Geography, Government, and Population. Currently, it's not clear why sections are segmented the way the are. It could look like a smaller-scaled version of the headings on the species infobox (see Budgerigar for a sample). The city infobox tries to do this, but it's hard to tell which are headings.
Flags: The other minor piece I like from the infobox are the flags and seals of the country, state, and county. I didn't want to add any of these, since no geobox had them, but it's just something I think adds a nice touch. Maybe we should just add the flags for country and state.

Anyone else have any thoughts on these?

Skeetidot 23:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Coordinates: I think the issue you are encountering with the coordinates are related to your browser and/or monitor settings. I have not encountered this issue and in fact have a significant amount of space between the "W" and the edge of the Geobox. I tried a couple of monitor settings on my computer and can't replicate the problem.
Headings: I think the groupings are generally self explanatory. Adding section header titles will increase the footprint of the box significantly and I don't think there's much of an added benefit to warrant that extra space. All the geography related info is together, all the demographic, etc., I think the average reader would understand the layout logic.
Flags: Flags, seals, etc are in the Geobox code already, see below for the parameter names. Plus with the "_type" suffix for parameters, you can change the flag or symbol to something else like a seal, a crest, a logo, etc. See Wilmington, Delaware for an example of the Geobox using these parameters.

<!-- *** Symbols *** -->
| flag                        = 
| flag_size                   =    
| symbol                      = 
| symbol_size                 =  

''Optional''
| symbol_type                 =

Well, those are my thoughts. VerruckteDan 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I misunderstood the original question about flags, but now I see what you're suggesting. I think that including the flags should be avoided and discouraged because use of the flags as described is basically just a decoration. While its not official Wikipedia policy, I think the guidance found at WP:FLAG is helpful and provides solid reasoning on why flags should not be used in this situation. VerruckteDan 00:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents:

Coordinates: There's indeed an issue with the coordinates which can be broken into two lines in the most unexpected places. In my browser's settings the coordinates for Springfield, Illinois break after the minus sign. I've already informed the authors of the {{coord}} template which deals with coordinates display. A minor adjustment is needed there. I can think of some temporary workarounds but let's hope {{coord}} will be updated.
Headings: I see no problem changing some groupings/sections if they don't seem right. Which would be these? One thing that might be confusing is that someplace there's just one line of a text in each section but that's due to missing data.
Flags: If I understand your point correctly you would like to have the small flags next to the Country, Region etc? As in Manchester United? Couldn'd quickly find another example. It can be done, at least for the country, in an automated way if that feature is requested. – Caroig (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. My response is below:

Coordinates: I guess we'll have to wait and see if the authors can fix the {{coord}} template.
Headings: Caroig, I think you're right that the groupings make sense but that there may be confusion due to missing data (for example, why date incorporated is by itself). I liked the headings used in this example (Bteghrine), but I also agree with VerruckteDan that it will take up extra space.
Flags: Exactly, Caroig! I like the idea of having it for the country and state/province. I'm not sure if it's something that needs to be automated, though. For an example, see Philadelphia. The spacing will need to be changed, but I like the idea the author here was going for.Skeetidot 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The {{coord}} template must have been fixed, because the coordinates all fit on one line on my monitor now! Thanks to whoever did that! Skeetidot 03:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being silent for such a long time, I haven't had much time for Wikipedia recently (besides, it's summer and I prefer outdoor activities at this time of year). Anyway, yeah, it's been fixed. Unfortunatelly not in the way I suggested. The {{coord}} template has been updated, it received the globe icon which I'm not happy with at all, it breaks the template layout, it's too big and my major objection is it creates two clickable objects on a single coordinates item. There exist a proposed new version of the Geohack page, which displays the WikiMiniAtlas at the top (you can see the redesign when you click on any coordinates item, not the globe, and then follow the View using the proposed redesign link near the top) thus unifying both features.

As the globe icon increased the width of the coordinates field in nearly every Geobox I put all the coordinates data in a span with the style="whitespace:no-wrap" property, so the line should never be broken. My idea was to put this property on the longitude and latitude separately so when needed the line might get broken but in a logical place. Are you happy with the globe icon? I do not object to the functionality it provides but to the way how the link is displayed, i.e. by inserting the large icon. I consider the new Geohack a much more elegant solution. I might rewrite the coordinates subtemplate in Geoboxes to display just the coordinates only again and linking it to the new Geohack. Any thoughts?

And finally, I started wotking on a rewrite of the Geobox code, aka Geobox 2. From the point of view of a user, not much will change apart from the fact the template call will be Geobox|Settlement instead of Geobox Settlement (i.e. with the pipe). Why is that?

When a new feature is implemented, as the etymology field, or a glitch discoverd, it is sooner or later applied on fixed for every Geobox. The Geoboxes generally share much of the code and each and every one has just a few specific fields. Moreover, there have been request for Geoboxes for other features. I've been somehow reluctant to creat them as it would mean more pages to watch and update. So I've created the {{Geobox}} which would contain all the fields any Geobox might need and also much more general purpose fields which might be redefined to suit the appropriate Geobox. When someone will need a Geobox for say a sea, they will choose just those fields they might use, put them in a blank template and new Geobox is born. This way, the Geoboxes with all their features might be used for any geography related subject without the need to create a separate template.

The new Geobox (aka Geobox 2) is not yet ready, however, there are a few testing pages showing the difference between the old and new Geobox. All field names remain unchanged, the layout is not altered (besides some minor fixes, as putting the coordinates field at the end of its section because the globe icon breaks the layout in the old Geoboxes). Not all fields are implemented, not all code rewritten, not all issues solved. You can see the work at {{Geobox}}. You might notice the flags, their inclusion is fully automatic, just add country_flag = 1 or state_flag = 1 and that's all, by default it's off so it will be up to editors whether to include them or not. – Caroig (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be gratefull for any comments on this development or any suggestion about the Geoboxes in general.

[edit] Disambiguation in Links

I want to add the mayor of Braddock, Pennsylvania as John Fetterman. However, if you click here, you'll see that there are multiple people by that name and the wrong person displays by default. Is there a way to set up links like [[John Fetterman (politician)|John Fetterman]] in the geobox? Thanks! Skeetidot 05:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, just enter the text exactly as you did in your question: [[John Fetterman (politician)|John Fetterman]]. VerruckteDan 05:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.