User talk:VerruckteDan/Archive4

Robeson County

I made this template tonight. What do you think? Is it missing anything that you notice right away. I purposefully excluded the CDPs. Should they be there?

Dincher 05:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response, I just returned from a trip to Austin. The template looks good, and I think the inclusion of the CDP is a positive. My view is that any area defined by the census should be included in the navboxes. I really like the new highlighted map using the Ruhrfisch's map as the base. I've had that one my list of things to do for PA and LA for a while. It looks like you're not uploading them to the Commons, would that be a better place to put them? VerruckteDan 00:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I must be missing the boat on posting maps, ect., on commons. My most recent addition Image:North Carolina Map Highlighting Chatham County.PNG has been tagged with a template that requests the image be posted on commons. Why? What difference does it make? Doesn't it still need to be posted on wikipedia for it to work on wikipedia or am I wrong. It seems to me that wikicommons is a redundancy. Dincher 20:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of the things is this: all images (and other media) should be posted to the Commons, which serves as a common repository for the media that can used in all Wikimedia projects. The code to use an image from the Commons is identical to the code for a image uploaded to the Wikipedia space. Wikimedia Commons gives a pretty good explanation. You will need to create a user name at the Commons. It can be the same as your Wikipedia user name, that's what both I and Ruhrfisch have done. Hope that helps. VerruckteDan 12:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In order to be on Commons, a file has to be free (no fair use images etc. allowed), so it is not quite all media files. Once there, a file can be used on any Wikimedia project (typically the other language versions of Wikipedia). For example, I have added PA and OH county maps to German and Portugese and other language articles (see here for an example). Except for a few fair use images and perhaps some very old free images, all the maps and photos I have uploaded are on Commons (not the English Wikipedia). It takes about the same amount of time to upload there as here, but once it is on Commons anyone can use it, not just the en WP. I have almost 1000 edits there. I figure if it is a useful free image or other file, it will be migrated to Commons eventually, so why not save the effort and put it there in the first place. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Illinois Townships

Hey Dan, sorry to bug you. When you get a free moment, could you recolor the township maps for Ogle, Winnebago, and DeKalb please? I know you have done three counties for us already, but those are the main three that I focus on. I am in the process of stubbing out the souther townships without maps right now. I wanted to get with you and see if it would be easier for me to just give you the blank map and have you create all the maps, or create the maps and then just have you recolor them. Also, if I upload to Commons, would that be a problem for you or do you have an account there?--Kranar drogin 16:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Kranar, I was just thinking about the Illinois maps in the last few days. I had stopped after the first 3 counties because I decided that the maps would be better on Commons and at the time I didn't have an account there. But now I do, so I'll be uploading all the new maps there.

Another issue I was hoping to address, is to make the township maps look a little more like the state map (showing the municipal and county boundaries of the neighboring counties). Unfortunately, I don't know of a source where I can find a base map that shows all of this, as the Census Bureau's maps that Ruhrfisch uses for the state maps do not have sub-county municipal boundaries. But, this can be addressed in the future if a solution presents itself.

The easiest thing is for you to provide a blank map, and then I'll create the colored maps for each township from there.

Finally, I wanted to confirm something with you real quick. Has the Illinois WP decided to use Geobox Settlement for all their articles? This question mostly stems from the use of Infobox Township on a lot of articles? Are there plans to convert this to Geobox Township for consistency? If so, I'll do some of theses conversions. Thanks. VerruckteDan 19:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just restarted my township project, to finally finish it off. In this, we are using the new geobox Township. (See Madison, Jefferson, Clinton, and Marion counties on the project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois/Townships). The best place to get county subdivisions is here [1]. I click on a section, then click on a county, then click on the map down at the bottom. I then clean it all up in paint, so that it is blank, then do my fill in.

I have the same User name over on the Commons, so I can upload a few blank ones here in a bit, so you can start experimenting if you want. I will let you know when I post a few of them up. I hope this gets you some info you are looking for.--Kranar drogin 19:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Clark County has been uploaded into Commons in the group Category:Maps of Clark County, Illinois. Once you create the maps, if you would be so kind as to plop them right there, that would be great. I am going to work on creating the townships now.--Kranar drogin 02:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed that you changed Sangamon County, Illinois template awhile back. I was wondering, would you be able to change the rest of the state's? Yeah, I know, there are 104 counties, haha. I proposed the change on the group template page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Illinois/Templates. Let me know, or respond there if you will. Oh, and did you find that map ok? I can start posting a bunch of the others if you want.--Kranar drogin 23:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

One other thing, haha. Cook County, Illinois townships have been changed to follow this map here Image:CookMap.gif. Could you create new maps for those townships, and upload to the Commons? Let me know, sorry to bombard you with so much.--Kranar drogin 02:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I can change the other Illinois county templates to the US county navigation box standard, it'll just take a while. Since all the content is in place, it'll be easier than starting from scratch. I'll do it in phases over the next week or two. My only question is this: do you want the image to be the highlighted state map or the flag? I see that this was asked before but there doesn't seem to be a consensus. California had issues with readability as well being a long state, they went with maps of the individual county, which I don't think is a good solution, especially with Illinois having lots of square or rectangular counties. Let me know your thoughts on the subject.

I saw the Clark County map, but have not gotten around to making the individual maps as of yet. It was a busy week at work, but I will do Clark County within the next few days. For Cook County, I see that the map you showed me is used on the Cook County page, but the townships I checked still seem to use the black and white maps with the township highlighted in red. So, I take it that you're just adding Cook County to the list of counties ready for me to create the new style maps. If there's something else, let me know. Thanks. VerruckteDan 21:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No rush on that map, that was just a test run before I put the others up. That is fine with the navigation box too. Take your time. Since no one is chiming in, I will just say to do it with the map, but maybe just make it a slightly smaller map so that the top bar doesn't look so big. I played with the pixels before, and thought it looked nice at the same size the map was I believe. Yes, Cook County will be townships that will need to be redone, but those current red highlighted ones will prolly have to be deleted since Cook has changed their township boundaries by that new map. Any other questions, let me know. Sorry to pile so much up on you. I am ALMOST done with the 1400 odd townships, phew. Then it will be on to the precincnts.--Kranar drogin 01:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

One more thing too on the templates. With the CDPs, most of them are on this List of unincorporated communities in Illinois, those are the ones we got from NACo.--Kranar drogin 06:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

One One more thing. Use Communities instead of the CDPs, I think Illinois has officially only seven CDPs.--Kranar drogin 06:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I changed it on Adams and Sangamon. Also, I'm about to post an answer to your coordinate question at the Geobox talk page. VerruckteDan 06:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

We are going to be hitting Ogle County hard I think. So I was wondering if you could hit those, that would be great. I can post the blank map on Commons if you want.--Kranar drogin 01:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, upload to Commons, and I'll do that first. VerruckteDan 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, lost your comment among my watchpage. I will be adding it today. Also, any luck with getting the GPS stuff figured out with the geoboxes?--Kranar drogin 16:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't had a chance to ask around yet. I've been taking a mini-break for the last week or so. I'll try and figure out some answers in the next few days. VerruckteDan 16:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I will get a few more blank ones up for you. Sorry for the delay, have been busy doing other stuff around here. This way if you feel you are on a roll, then you can keep going right at it.--Kranar drogin 22:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Kranar, I'm trying something along the lines of the images found [2], where the maps show the boundaries of the neighboring counties and their townships. I'm debating whether to upload it over the current blank map so that you can take a look. Is there another means in which you could see the file? If nothing else, email, if you're comfortable sharing that. VerruckteDan 23:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just upload over the other one on the Commons. You can e-mail me too, you just have too. I have my e-mail enables so you can send me one if you need too.--Kranar drogin 01:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded a bunch today, going to do a few more I think. You can find them in their categories here [3]. Eventually, I will move those other images down below up into their county.--Kranar drogin 02:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I left the original inplace and uploaded the concept [4]. Let me know what you think. VerruckteDan 03:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks really good. Threw me off there that you didn't divide Oregon and Nashua Townships, but heck, since they are combined there is no need too. I like that map that shows a bit of area around them. Do you want me to keep uploading the blank ones then? Do they help you? I will check back in the morn, off to bed for the evening.--Kranar drogin 03:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Illinois Cities

I am having problems with links in the geobox. Trying to cite some stuff, and it isn't working in Quincy, Illinois.--Kranar drogin 00:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the citations. There are separate parameters for including a citation, for example "population_metro" would be accompanied by "population_metro_note" for a citation. I don't use that citations much, because I think its better to cite the information in the text of the article as opposed to the Geobox. VerruckteDan 15:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Blanking roadmaps added to towns

28-June-2007: Someone using user ID "VerruckteDan" is blanking a series of articles about Louisiana towns, removing recently added roadmaps and other changes without opening a dialog with the previous editor of the current revisions. See the recent revision history of: Kenner and Bogalusa, Louisiana. -Wikid77 05:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the road maps because they don't really add anything to the articles in terms of locating the various cities/towns that the maps currently on these pages show. I also restored the Geobox changes in order to maintain the consistency across all Louisiana cities/towns/villages, etc. The map of the US highlighting Louisiana should be equal size to the map of Louisiana, its a much more appropriate size for readability. As for the blank fields of the Geobox, this allows future editors to know which parameters exist in the template allowing them to add such information. If you disagree with this reasoning, please share your views.

I'd ask that you choose your wording more carefully in messages for other editors. In your first message, you state that I've been "blanking a series of articles," which is certainly not an accurate phrase. Additionally, I did not discuss the changes beforehand because they were good faith edits designing to maintain the consistency of all Louisiana articles.

Finally, please do not edit my user page, limit your comments to the talk page. VerruckteDan 21:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikid77, I have not heard a response from you concerning the comments you left on my talk page on June 28th and my reply to them. However, your edits to Louisiana municipalities have raised several issues that I think need to be discussed before you continue making edits.

First, you started removing the blank parameters of the Geobox and reducing the size of the map highlighting Louisiana in the United States. Your reason for this was to increase the speed, however the guideline Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance states that individuals do not need to concern themselves with the server speeds, as "there is nothing you can do to appreciably speed up or slow down the site." Therefore, I don't see a benefit to these edits, but I see the following negatives.

First, the presence of the blank parameters will help future editors (whether familiar with the Geobox or not) to add addition information to the Geobox. Second, the USA map should be the same size as the Louisiana map for readability. As Wikipedia is a global community, there are certainly readers from other countries that may not be familiar with American geography. The map is there to provide a better context to the location of the subject of the article. Reducing it in size, makes readability an issue and renders it ineffective at communicating its intended purpose.

Second, you created 3 new templates based on the Geobox for the various types of Louisiana municipalities. This runs counter to the idea of the Geobox which is a consistent template that can be used across municipalities around the globe. The Geobox is customizable enough that it can be applied anywhere without the need to create small regional templates. Additionally, by having one common template, any edits to improve the Geobox only need to be made in one place. If every state and type of municipality had their own template, maintain these templates to consistent standards becomes incredibly difficult, as was the case before the drive to condense such templates earlier this year. The Geoboxes as they were prior to your edits were functioning just fine and had not encountered any of the problems that you cite at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 6#Template:Geobox Lousiana... as your reasons for their creation.

Given my reasons above and the TfD proposal to delete the Louisiana Geoboxes where the the consensus so far is for deletion, I believe that the Geoboxes need to be restored to their previous versions.

Beyond the Geobox edits, I have a few other observations. While adding citations to Wikipedia articles is certainly a positive, I think it's a mistake to replace any US Census data, which is used on all US municipal articles and is a consistent reliable source, with data from City-data. City-data states that their information comes from various sources, but doesn't say which ones. This seems less reliable a source than the Census in my opinion. If there is a difference in data from the Census and City-data, the Census should take priority as that is the official information for any municipality.

Another piece of information that has been changed in most of your edits is the elevation of a town. While I recognize that a town does not have one single elevation value, the numbers listed in the Geoboxes come from the GNIS which is the USGS's database of all geographic locations in the United States. Again, like the Census this is an official source that covers all municipalities in the country and contains the coordinates and elevations for all municipalities. Given that the coordinates already in place in all municipal articles come from this database, the elevation values should as well. I feel that preference should go to the USGS data over City-data values.

Finally, the Louisiana road maps. I am unsure what they are inteded to do. First, the location of a municipality is already identified in the Locator map in the Geobox. Second, the road maps are so cluttered with town names they are hard to read and the actual town it is supposed to be identifying is hard to locate. I'm just not sure what is the purpose of these maps.

Thank you for looking at my concerns. I hope you hear back from you. VerruckteDan 22:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Communities in Berks County

Greetings:

I've been working on maps for every community in every county in Pennsylvania. I've already finished Northampton County and Lehigh County. I was about to begin Berks County, and I noticed you've created infoboxes for every community. I compliment you on your work, but I am concerned that these infoboxes might be a bit too much for some of the small communities - many times the infobox is longer than the article itself.

My proposed solution is discarding the infobox for boroughs, townships, and census-designated places, while keeping them for cities. In my mind, this makes sense; after all, in the cases of smaller communities most of the information found in the infoboxes can already be found in the article itself. On the other hand, there is usually enough information about cities to warrant an infobox - seals, skyline photos, mottos, etc. To see what this would look like, compare the current revision of the Bechtelsville article to my proposed revision of the same page.

Normally, I don't give a hoot about what previous editors did. However, since you've obviously put a lot of time into this, I figured I'd run my idea by you first. Any suggestions? "Country" Bushrod Washington 03:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me start off by thanking you for your good work on the community maps, my only question about them is have you considered using the color scheme suggested by WikiProject Maps? As for the geoboxes, I understand your concern about them being too big for the articles on boroughs, townships, etc which at this time are mostly stubs with geographic and demographic info. I generally think that boxes should not overwhelm an article, but in this case I feel that the Geoboxes add enough beneficial features to an article that it's presence is warranted on all municipalities.

First, it provides a consistent look and places the information in the same quick and easy location for users to find. Second, the Geobox has parameters for a sizable amount of information not currently found in the articles, and therefore encourages other users to add this information. The boxes are fairly basic right now, as I did not do research into most municipalities to find settlement dates, mayors, etc. But on many pages that I've added the box, other users have come back and added additional information. So I believe it's presence on the article serves as a catalyst to article growth and development. It may be a little bit of long term planning, but I think most articles will grow around the Geobox to the point where the space differential is not problematic. Third, the Geobox automatically displays the coordinates of whichever municipality in the title space which seems to be the new preferred method spreading across Wikipedia. But in addition to displaying in the title, the Geobox also utilizes Microformat for coordinates which allows outside sites such as Goggle Earth to pick up the data and display a link to that municipality (Google Earth has a Wikipedia layer).

Additionally, incorporation of municipal maps into the Geobox such as yours (along with the 2 current maps have been done successfully for Delaware County municipalities, some Bucks County locations and a variety of counties in Illinois. Again, this leads to a large Geobox, but I think in the end it serves as an overall positive addition to all articles on municipalities.

Let me know your thoughts on my reasoning for inclusion of the Geobox on all municipal articles. I think both of our work (the maps and the Geoboxes) are great additions to the PA municipalities, and hopefully we can merge the two together in a beneficial manner. VerruckteDan 15:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

First: It seems WikiProject Maps offers little guidance when it comes to the color scheme of such maps. It seems there's no consensus as to appropriate colors. I was simply following the lead of whoever made the maps for the communities in Allegheny County.

Second: I think you are probably right and I am probably wrong about the appropriateness of Geoboxes for smaller towns, boroughs, communities, townships, etc. . . . My only remaining concern, if you can call it that, is that I feel that the Geoboxes ought to track the infoboxes currently used for cities. I replaced the Geobox you made for Reading with the city infobox. The differences between the two are minimal and mostly aesthetic -- the maps appear before the most of the technical details of the city, all of the categories are linked. The city infobox is obviously inappropriate for municipalities that are not cities, as the boxes themselves actually say "city" in them. However, my attempts to edit the Geoboxes are all for naught -- the boxes are too stubborn or I am too ignorant to edit them to my liking.

Creating infoboxes specifically for towns, boroughs, and the like that track the city infobox in every conceivable way would be ideal, but I'm not the man for that job. So, unless you know what you're doing with them, I propose that we keep your Geoboxes with the following simple changes: (1) instead of listing the name as "Borough of ______" or "Township of ______," the name ought to be listed as "______, Pennsylvania" so they are consistent with the city infoboxes; and (2) eliminate the link under the name to the list of boroughs, townships, etc . . ., that link should be included at the bottom of the page with the other lists/categories, and is, I feel, distracting at the top of the infobox.

What do you think? "Country" Bushrod Washington 01:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about the link to WikiProject Maps, I thought the color scheme was there. I have seen the recommended colors listed on a member's of the Project's user page. Basically, the colors used by the maps currently used in the Geobox follow the color scheme. I'd recommend talking to User:Ruhrfisch about the maps. He's the creator of the PA map used in the Geobox, and can probably provide a better explanation of the colors, as he is quite an active map maker.

I see your concern about the differences between the Infobox and the Geobox, and maybe for the time being cities such as Reading should continue to use the Infobox, however, there is a growing movement towards the Geobox, both for cities and other areas (the Geobox is part of the Geobox series. I've embraced the Geobox because it's goal is to create a series of templates related to geography with a consistent look and a common logic to the parameter naming scheme. It's actually very customizable, once you learn the basics of the parameter naming. So while it changes appearances from the Infobox a bit, there is a legitimate reason, its attempting to create a consistent look and feel across a broader scheme.

Currently, there are Geoboxs for Settlements (cities, towns, etc), Regions, Rivers, Mountains and surely more in the works. The concept has really caught on with Rivers, and articles are being converted over to the Geobox. On the city side of things, Illinois is implementing the Geobox and it's been implemented in Louisiana. I'll be honest, my preference is the Geobox, I think its a crisper template in terms of coding, it auto converts from imperial to metric and vice versa, it automatically provides the title coordinates and allow outside programs to capture the coordinates, it utilizes a locator map feature instead of needing anindivdual file for each city's "Dot map," and its customization capabilities make it very versatile.

You mentioned the links in the left column above, the Geobox can be set to have linked text in the left column, I just didn't include this because I think there needs to be some more discussion and guidelines on what to link to. For example, the link for county is to List of Pennsylvania counties, which is probably a good idea, however metro under population is linked to a generic article on metropolitan areas. I think it'd be more appropriate to link to the Reading metro area. But this is ultimately another whole debate. That said, the norm for cities at least is the Infobox, so if thats what you want to use for cities, I can live with that.

Finally, the titles. I see what you mean about the category link at the top could be a distraction, and am would be fine with their removal. That said, I think that makes it more important to keep the titles as "Borough of ______" or "_______ Township" as opposed to "________, Pennsylvania". No where else in either the Infobox or Geobox does it indicate the type of municipality, so having it in the title space clearly identifies it to the reader. It seems to me, the Pennsylvania does not need to be in the title space because it is listed in the section immediately below where the country, state, and county are listed. Additionally, not all the City Infoboxes use the "City, State" model in the title, see New York City, Los Angeles or Houston and in a related Infobox see Pennsylvania. In all these cases the title in the Infobox does not match the article title exactly, but instead gives the formal title City of New York and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Quite, a long message, but I look forward to hearing back from you. VerruckteDan 22:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the map color scheme--red for cities, towns, and boroughs; blue for census-designated places and unincorporated communities; and white for townships. That makes perfect sense when you are creating a map for a county, and you need to differentiate between the three. I don't think that it makes as much sense when you are making a map to highlight a particular community. Following the color scheme leads to problems when you make a map highlighting a particular community. First, and most obviously, white is not appropriate to highlight anything on a white map. Second, since census-designated places are part of their respective townships, when creating a map highlighting townships, the census-designated places contained therein are highlighted as well. Following the color scheme on these maps would lead to confusion, unless each image contained some sort of explanatory caption. However, some small townships contain many census-designated places. Unless the map requires distinguishing between different types of community, I would stick to a single color for purposes of highlighting.

I don't have any beef with the Geoboxes per se, I just feel that the city infoboxes are more aesthetically pleasing. There's nothing wrong with the Geoboxes as they are, I just think they could be better. If the maps came immediately after the seals & and skyline photos, and the categories were linked where appropriate, they would be perfect.

I see your point with titling the Geoboxes "Borough of ______" or "City of ______," and am agreeable to keeping them that way. With the cities like New York or Los Angeles, I always assumed the reason they were listed that way was because they are internationally known cities, and the listing the state was not necessary--just like if you were citing a book published in New York for an essay, you would cite the city as "New York," but if the book was published in Reading, you'd cite the city as "Reading, PA." But that's just academic . . . like I said; I'm okay with titles as is. "Country" Bushrod Washington 02:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Great, so it seems like we've come to an agreeable way forward with PA municipalities. The only area that is still pending I guess is the maps. Again, let me apologize for being unclear. The maps with the red for cities, blue for boroughs, etc is not the color scheme I was referring to. Instead I was referring to the color scheme used in maps such as these below. Both the different shadings and the boundary colors:

I also found the color scheme from a member of the Maps project.

Color	Hex	RGB	Sample	Used for
Black	#000000	0, 0, 0		Primary label color
Brown	#A08070	160, 128, 112		Political borders. Country, state, and province borders should be brown.
Light brown	#D0C0A0	208, 192, 160		Secondary political borders.
Light yellow	#FFFFD0	255, 255, 208		Primary territory of interest, or one of four choices for four-color maps.
Pink	#FFD0D0	255, 208, 208		Another color to be used for four-color maps.
Orange	#F8A20C	248, 162, 12		A third color to be used for four-color maps.
Green	#3CE67B	60, 230, 123		A fourth color to be used for four-color maps.
Light blue	#CEFEF2	206, 254, 242		An alternate color to be used for four-color maps.
Orange	#F7D3AA	247, 211, 170		Alternative color for the above Tan (surrounding territories).
Medium blue	#9EC7F3	158, 199, 243		Bodies of water. Oceans or lakes.
Blue	#1821DE	24, 33, 222		Water borders, if necessary. For lake or ocean borders that need a color contrasting with surrounding land, or for rivers.
Red	#B00000	176, 0, 0		Points of interest. Cities, especially.
Red-orange	#F07568	240, 117, 104		Alternative color for the above Red (points of interest).
Medium red	#E0584E	224, 88, 78		Border color for areas highlighted in Red-orange
Green	#A0F090	160, 240, 144		Parks or natural preservation areas

Anyway, the colors don't seem to be fully decided on, or the Map project has not updated their page to reflect the decision, so for the time being I guess its still up to individual editors. Thanks for the productive discussion. VerruckteDan 05:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's just as well that the color scheme lacks a consensus--implementing it is probably beyond my primitive (MS Paint) method of map-making, and I would have had to back out. I'm going to go back and redo the pages I've recently so that they are consistent with what was layed out in our discussion. Feel free to contact me in the future if I can be of any service on the Pennsylvania-related articles.

While I'm writing, there's an issue on which you may be able to enlighten me. Check out Pen Argyl, Pennsylvania. Notice how the coordinates link in the upper right-hand corner appear muddled. I suspect that the addition of the Geobox is causing this. You wouldn't happen to know how to rectify the problem?"Country" Bushrod Washington 02:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The conflict in the title coordinates is this: the Geobox automatically adds the coordinates to the title line, thus replicating the function of the Geolinks template at the bottom. There is a minor difference, the specific links to Google Maps and such that appear at the bottom are not there. Instead, you click on the title link and get the full list of possible links (the same page that the Geolinks template links to). I corrected this on Penn Argyl. VerruckteDan 22:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

municipality maps

sounds like a good idea. I am not sure how exactly to do it though --Astrokey44 09:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed Chester, Pennsylvania to the order I proposed. All the change involves is the order of the map parameters. The Delco map is "map...", the PA map is "map1..." and the US map is "map2..." I also shortened the caption of the Delco map to make it fit on one line and match the style of the other captions. Plus, Delaware County does not need to be linked, as it is previously linked in the Geobox and article text. Let me know what you think. If no objections, I will start changing them over the weekend. VerruckteDan 15:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This looks great how you have reorganised it! Also I see what you mean about the colours.. they are the standard wikiproject maps ones, I might be able to change the colours of the existing maps to match --Astrokey44 00:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits to improve server speed question

Hi Dan, I agree that the comment seems familiar. I thought perhaps it was at the talk page for {{nts}} but a quick look there did not show anything similar, at least that I saw. I have thought of two other places where I might have seen it. The first would be the Wikipedia Village Pump Technical page (from the question on maps updating I asked there that was never answered). As that is a very busy page, I am not eager to search through there. The second would be a user's talk page - probably Kranar Drogin's? Sorry not to be of more help. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Uploading Multiple Images

Thanks Dan. I finished all of the locator maps for Allegheny County, but I don't know the best way to upload them. So first, in response to your comment about file names, is there a way to change all the file names (maybe add something to the beginning like "Allegheny County Locator Map". Second, is there a way to batch upload images to Wikimedia Commons? I downloaded a program called Wikimedia Commonplace and it seemed like my images all uploaded, but I didn't see them when I tried searching for the on Wikimedia Commons. Skeetidot 04:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Skeet, let me suggest that you talk to User:Ruhrfisch. He creates and uploads a lot of images to Commons, and may have some tips to help in batch uploading or renaming the files. On the renaming side, 2 ideas come to mind. First would be to open your local folder with all the maps, type the desired common text in the first file name. Then just copy and paste it into each of the files. Second idea, if there is no batch upload solution, you can just add the longer file name to the upload location without first changing the name of the local file. Hope those help, maybe not the quickest solutions, but thats all I can think of right now. But definitely talk to Ruhrfisch first, he's a good resource and a friendly guy. VerruckteDan 19:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You might consider following the naming scheme of other PA county locator maps. "Municipality, County, Pennsylvania" VerruckteDan 15:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Mayor vs Supervisor in Geobox Settlement

I could use some help from someone who has experience with templates. This is described in more detail in Wikipedia:Requested templates#Mayor vs Supervisor in Geobox Settlement. Basically, many towns in New York (and possibly elsewhere) have Town Supervisor as the leader, yet the Geobox Settlement template (and other similar templates) only allows Mayor. Can the existing template support this? Maybe a small modification?

The left column tags of the Geobox can be changed from their defaults. In this case, "Mayor" is the default when the parameter mayor or leader is used. However, in the case where a municipal leader is not mayor, this can be changed by the following code:

| leader_type = Supervisor
| leader = Bob Johnson

If you want to see an example of usage in an article, check out Uwchlan Township, Pennsylvania. This is one of the reasons I'm a big advocate of the Geobox series of templates, they are very customizable to meet the specifics of an article, yet still maintain clean and unified look across all articles using Geoboxes. I'll copy this answer to the link you posted above as well. If you have other questions, please let me know, I'm happy to help. VerruckteDan 15:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. I tried it in Pittsford (town), New York and it works great. Truthanado 15:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad you find the Geobox useful. I'm working on getting a New York Locator map made (like the one found on the Uwchlan Township article) so that you can incorporate those into the Geobox. The locator dot is placed automatically when you enter the coordinates into the Geobox. I'll let you know when the map is ready. VerruckteDan 15:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up and fixes to the long website names in geoboxes that cause overly-wide boxes. I was going to ask you how to correct that ... you beat me to it. Thanks. Truthanado 13:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help where I can. Did you get my message about have the Geobox title read "Town of...." or "Village of..." instead of just the name? I think that method looks better, it clearly establishes the type of municipality, and it keeps the NY articles consistent with all other states using the Geobox. Let me know what you think about it. VerruckteDan 21:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

GNIS

Thanks, Dan!

How do you reference GNIS, though? I think it's , but if I try to add that after the elevation field in the geobox, the elevation displays as 0. Do I have to have it somewhere in the main text of the article? Skeetidot 17:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally, most (or all) of the information stated in the Geobox should probably be included in the text somewhere. I have not gotten around to adding the elevation numbers to the main body of text on any of the articles I've added elevation into the Geobox. Either way, if you want to add a reference into the Geobox use the parameter "elevation_note = ". Basically anytime you want to add a reference to the geobox, use the name of the parameter you are adding it to followed by "_note" VerruckteDan 17:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I added a few into the text today, and since GEobox content should be in the text, I'll continue put the link there. Nice to know, though! Skeetidot 22:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Louisiana edits

Hi, VerruckteDan. This is Wikid77. OK, I see concensus building to delete the quick interface-templates of "Geobox Louisiana" so I've stopped adding them. I have saved copies of those templates, in case people realize the horror ahead, when "Geobox Settlement" is in 11,500 USA articles and needs some non-trivial changes applied to all 11,500 articles (oops!).

I'm checking the GNIS elevation numbers for footnotes, now. Some of the older [deprecated] templates clearly explained the elevation figures, so I'm aware of your concerns.

I'm sensing that you are tired of improving the city/town articles now. I realize that you've only converted about 2% of them, so there is an enormous (truly overwhelming), horrific amount of Geobox work ahead to convert the other 98% of articles. I tried to explain interfacing each US state's "200 articles" with just 3 common interface-templates, but people didn't understand. Oh well, tell them to help edit (and re-edit) those 11,500 articles (yeah, right). Later. -Wikid77 02:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Maps

Hi Dan, here is the NY locator map - it took me a while as I had to get the Candaian borders from the National Atlas map, which is not the same size or quite the same orientation as the Census maps. I also fixed the Beaufort County, NC map water color - thanks for the heads up notices. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. VerruckteDan 18:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I fixed a lot of things on the NY map - I had actually realized that Richmond County (Staten Island) was not part of New Jersey, but not that Manhattan (aka New York County) was underwater on my map (nothing personal, NYC, at least I got 60% of the boroughs right on my first try). I also added the other lakes and did a better job on the Lake Erie and Lake Ontario outlet regions, and the east end of Long Island. I did not resize the map - I should add a few pixels at the bottom as I always have at least a 5 pixel margin on these maps. If I do that I have to add to PA and NJ too. What do you think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to make you do extra work, but for the sake of consistency, the 5 pixel spaces at the bottom would probably be a good thing. Nice work on all the other lakes, I hadn't even thought about adding those. Let me know if you decide to change the bottom pixel space, I plan on making the Geobox calibrated map tomorrow, and will wait for your edit before the calibration. VerruckteDan 02:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the extra bottom 5 pixels to the NY locator map. Fortunately I had saved a scratch version of it, so I had the extra stuff quickly available. Can you please tell Truthanado (sp?) when the map is ready / calibrated? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Pennsylvania

Hello there!

I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:

• Contact us on IRC at #wikimedia-pa
• Join our mailing list
• Visit our blog at http://wmfpa.blogspot.com

Thanks and I hope you join up! Cbrown1023 talk 04:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Monroe County nav box

Good job on the nav box -- thanks for doing it and educating me about nowrap!
Jim Dunning | talk 00:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. VerruckteDan 00:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Map question

Hi Dan, I am on a map kick - would locator maps for the Louisiana Parishes (like the PA, OH, NC, and RI county maps I made) be useful? Here is the link if you want to see the source maps [5]. If they would be helpful, I will work on them over the next few weeks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you feel up to it, I'm sure I can put them to good use. VerruckteDan 02:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, just to make sure there are city, town, village as incorporated places, the townships are districts, and of course CDPs (I want to make the key right). Also, how many parishes are there (perhaps I should have asked this first)? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There are 64 parishes (but New Orleans is coextensive with Orleans Parish), so it'll be easy. There are cities, towns, villages, and CDPs. I'm not sure what the districts are on the maps, I have never heard of these districts/townships. I don't think they should be included in your maps. VerruckteDan 02:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I made three parish maps already - they are on Commons but can be changed as needed. Webster Parish, Lincoln Parish, and Claiborne Parish. The Census Maps (link above) usually show several counties or parishes per page and I edit the individual maps out of these, plus add the keys. The Ddistricts are on the Census maps. I could edit them out (will take some time) but is there any way to check on them first? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

They look good, but the districts make them really crowded. I did some research and it appears that the districts are for the Parish Council seats. So they're not municipal boundaries, just electoral districts. I know it increases the workload a lot, but given this fact, it doesn't seem like the districts should be shown of theses maps. What do you think? VerruckteDan 03:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is Claiborne Parish without the districts. The problem is that so many lines converged on Homer, I am not 100% sure I got the borders right (checked against the online census map at factfinder.census.gov, so seems OK). Also will take longer, but that is OK. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think what I will do is make two versions of each parish map - one with the districts shown and one without. I have to make the one with districts in the process anyway, so that way both versions will be available if needed. I will also list them as alternate versions on each parish's map in Commons. What do you think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good solution to me. VerruckteDan 15:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted an edit to your user page that seems the work of a vandal. Slowly working on seven more parish maps. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw your revert, and appreciate it. Gotta love those anonymous IP addresses. The parish maps are looking good. VerruckteDan 04:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

DC Meetup notice

Greetings. There is going to be a Washington DC Wikipedia meetup on next Saturday, July 21st at 5pm in DC. Since you are listed in Category:Wikipedians_in_Delaware, I thought I'd invite you to come. I'm sorry about the short notice for the meeting. Hopefully we'll do somewhat better in that regard next time. If you can't come but want to make sure that you are informed of future meetings be sure to list yourself under "but let me know about future events", and if you don't want to get any future direct notices \(like this one\), you can list yourself under "I'm not interested in attending any others either" on the DC meetup page.--Gmaxwell 22:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

New Orleans Portal

I have created a portal for New Orleans. I saw it was on the future to do list, so I went ahead and created it. Since it looks like you are active in editing Louisiana-oriented articles, I thought that I would let you know about it. Feel free to edit away and improve as you wish, as I mainly have a nice-looking shell so far. Arundhati lejeune 09:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for creating it, the shell looks good. I haven't really embarked into the world of Portals, so its nice to see there is some interest from others. Keep up the good work and I'll try to contribute to the Portal at some point. VerruckteDan 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Shield Size

Thanks for the heads-up. So single and double digit signs are 20px and triple digits get 25px. Got it.

Denimadept 21:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You got it, and good work on the Connecticut River bridge articles. VerruckteDan 21:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)