Template talk:Geographic location

Accessibility support

{{editprotected}}

For WP:ACCESSIBILITY by visually impaired readers, purely decorative images such as this template's compass roses should be marked with "|link=" (see WP:ALT #When to specify). Could you please install the obvious sandbox patch to do this? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Y Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, this should only be done with public domain images. --- RockMFR 22:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

---

{{editprotected}}

OK, please install this sandbox change instead. It uses the public-domain image Image:Compass rose pale-50x50.png to allay any licensing concerns. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 06:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Y Done Plastikspork (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility update

{{editprotected}} Since the above discussion, the Mediawiki software has been changed to require "|link=|alt=" instead of just "|link=", to mark an image as being purely decorative; see WP:ALT#Purely decorative images. Please install this simple sandbox patch to fix the problem. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Y Done Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Merging other templates to this one

Further to discussion above, I've nominated:

• Template:Compass-table (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]
• Template:GeoCompass (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

for deletion (by way of redirect/ merge), as redundant to this template. Each is reportedly used <150 times, compared to 6,0000+ for this one. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

These are now redirected here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed Navbar

I removed the tiny "view, edit, discuss" links as they pointed to this template, which seems unnecessary since they do not facilitate changing any actual content in the article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this template useful?

I am sure this template took effort to make but is it really adding anything useful. A simple map would tell you what cities are next door using less space with a higher degree of accuracy. And if the argument that is a navigation panel then it belongs at the bottom of articles using a third the space it currently occupies. -MarsRover (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the assessment. Yes, a map would certainly be beneficial, but the reality is that we do not have the resources to produce almost seven thousand maps tailored to individual articles, compete with the article linking capability this template offers. Is this solution perfect? No, certainly not - but it does allow us to add a useful location service within our "budget" (as it were). --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I think a flat list of neighboring locations would suffice. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

A variety of similar templates were created, larger and smaller; this one seems to have gained more mainstream support and usage, so let's keep it for now; as stated before, maps with wikilinks are rare; if you want to propose modifications, and have a specific layout in mind, please create it in a sandbox and let us look at it. --Qyd (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I find this template to be useful on stubs, but on well developed articles this information should already be there. It is cluttering and unhelpful on the U.S. state articles that it currently transcludes on. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Compatible with infobox?

Please look as Newton Regis where there is a large amount of white space, as this template waits until infobox has finished before drawing itself. Though I agree with those who would abolish this template completely, is there anything that can be done to improve its presentation? Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 16:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it the template, or the images included in the template? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean, you are wondering about the fact that this is a relatively wide box, and there is a large gap if your browser window isn't wide enough, due to the long infobox? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and no. The location box width is not static. It spreads out as the browser window increases, so as to always come after the infobox. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 10:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I see you've moved the box to the end of the article to try and make it look better. You left the heading behind, so I've tidied those. However, we need a more generatal solution if indeed this template is used in 6800 pages (it says here). Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 10:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is based on the navbox class, which has a clear break at the top (on purpose, it is intended to do this, as it is supposed to be placed at the bottom of articles). You can bypass this by including the entire template in a fixed width div.(example)--Qyd (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I have undone your change to Newton Regis as it does not solve the problem - the box is narrow enough, but still floats below the infobox, regardless (Firefox 3.5.6). And, in my opinion, setting a fixed width, even if it did work, would only solve it for those users whose browser window is within a particular range of sizes. I feel this template is more of a hindrance than a help, and should be deprecated, or else only ever used as part of the navbox stack. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 21:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this template should only be used at the foot of the article, along with any other wide navigation boxes. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a navbox, but provides some information about the subject itself, and I would argue for this reason, as well as aesthetics, should come on top of any navbox stack. Rich Farmbrough, 12:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

TFD

{{editprotect}} TFD nom as per Presents a over simplified view of geographic details i.e has no support for town x which is north north west of centre town y with out giving a real context of the towns surroundings. Information better presented in the the article or using a map Gnevin (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} Withdrawn as per WP:Snow Gnevin (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox sync

{{editprotected}}

Please sync with the sandbox to remove the links from the arrow icons; they are purely decorative, and clicking them leads to an unexpected result (one might expect to move to a different location article; instead it leads to the icon's image page). Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Y Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Replace "(enter city)" with PAGENAME

Any reason not to? Rich Farmbrough, 12:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

Good suggestion from the perspective of efficiency and ease-of-use, but in practice it would not always work properly because of the way articles are named. We would end up with provinces or states being displayed where they aren't needed, not to mention the articles that have descriptors in parentheses such as "(district municipality)". --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm I would hope that people would have the intelligence to fix those. Rich Farmbrough, 19:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC).

Fixable, yes, but would people do it? I guess it is a toss-up between having the "enter city" text or having the other. I suppose we could try it out and see what happens. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)