Template talk:Adjacent communities/Archive 1

Application

people started using this on articles on countries. It may be useful in articles on Canadian cities, but it is really just clutter elsewhere. dab (ᛏ) 14:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... hadn't realized that it was in use for countries. I can see a use for it, but editors may well want to modify the design. If so, PLEASE KEEP IN MIND that this is intended for use in city/municipality articles. If you're planning any major changes to adapt the template for countries, please copy the coding to a new template and work from there. That will help to prevent disruption to the pages already using it for surrounding cities. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

this makes sense. countries are linked to {{Geographic Location (8-way)}}, so I'll copy it there for now. I find this was done on 10 Nov by Akanemoto (talk · contribs) [1], without so much as edit summaries, and I am asking myself whether we shouldn't just silently revert. dab (ᛏ) 08:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this seems to add clutter. It takes up a lot of space for very little information. Is there any way it could be made smaller, less intrusive?Robomanx (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

arrows and image

This is subjective, but to me the older direction arrows look much better then the larger (if vector) arrows . Could we either revert to the previous version, or convert the old small images to svg? Please! --Qyd 15:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Already done. (I didn't see your note, but was of like mind - the newer ones really look... odd.) What do you think about the globe - could it be replaced? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it just steals focus from the content, serves no practical purpose. Maybe it should be replaced with something less intrusive. --Qyd 22:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this: instead of this: ? --Qyd 00:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

		(enter city)

Much more subtle... what do you think? --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I like it more than with the Armillary sphere; but I don't think it's perfect, this is what it looks like with all fields:

That compass rose has a 75% tranparency, I could change that if you think it would look better some other way. --Qyd 01:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think - should we put it up and see what happens? --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, why not :) Unless you think we should request comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject British Columbia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Alberta, as there's where the template is mosly transcluded. --Qyd 00:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of implementing the change, let's see if it's well received... --Qyd 00:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Great... thanks for keeping on top of this - I forgot about it in the December rush! --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I coded in an optional parameter named image, it alows to use a custom image in the transcluded template. --Qyd 02:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on renaming to Geographic Location (8-way)....

I think that this template would be more universal if it was renamed Geographic Location (8-way). I found a great use for this template with towns in Vermont--see Guildhall, Vermont. I created Template:Geographic Location (8-way) and redirected it here so that editors of articles in places other than Canada don't say, "when did Vermont join Canada?" . Just something to think about....—MJCdetroit 01:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No one piped up, so I moved it...—MJCdetroit 20:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Four new directions

User CKatz demands discussion about a feature I implemented, and he subsequently removed. This feature is the inclusion of 4 additional directions - that is, locations for place names to appear, instead of the current 8. The four new ones are ENE, ESE, WNW and WSW. They would appear as follows:

Note that the space they occupy was already there, but always blank. CKatz claims:

1. The presence of these new items complicates the template.
2. They should not be included, since the template does not provide space for their 4 counterparts (NNE, NNW, SSE, SSW).

I say:

1. The new items do not drastically complicate the template- they are a quite minor change, and are no more "confusing" than the current code. There will be no significant change whatsoever to the end user or editor, who can ignore these new slots if he so choses.
2. These four directions are useful, so why should they not be made available? Should we suppress a better product because a perfect one cannot be produced? That's just silly.

Furthermore, let me state the reasons I included these changes in the first place:

1. Some places I was dealing with (The neighborhoods and suburbs of Chicago) have more than three locations neighboring them on a given side. The two additional slots provided in this way allow for all nearby locations to be displayed in a convenient manner.
2. The new slots allow a more accurate display of location, in a world in which things are not always located at 45 degree angles from each other. It is not an exact display, true, but it is an improvement.

Frankly, I did not think this change would be so "controversial" (to one person, so far), and was using them already on several pages before CKatz reverted. --Eliyak T·C 03:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, I'll repeat what I've mentioned to Eliyak in the initial discussion on my talk page.

• The template isn't designed for, or suited to, such a fine degree of directional input.
• Further to this, text-based templates do not display with sufficient clarity to make this useful. (It is almost impossible, for example, to differentiate between a two-line entry in the "Northwest" field and the "WNW" field.)
• There is no provision for the other directions (NNW etc.)

Furthermore, I invited Qyd, who also maintains this template, for thoughts on the change. Qyd's reply was "Yes, I believe that further fields would be overkill."

--Ckatz^chat_spy 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a functionality I would like to have available, I have created a new template at {{Geographic Location 2}}. I hope this does not bother anyone. --Eliyak T·C 18:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Surrounds redirected here

I converted the few pages using this template and redirected it here. For reference, the template last appeared like this: [2]. Its talk page contained:

Is this even correct grammar: "Surrounds of Shaker Heights", using Shaker Heights as an example? It doesn't quite seem so. Spencer^T♦C 20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

--Eliyak T·C 15:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Image not appearing

So, am I just missing something very obvious, or why is the image not appearing on the template on the Fulton, Missouri page?

I just found this template today, and I love it. So, I'm trying to start it on articles about my area, starting with my hometown of Fulton. Genius00345 (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Same with Saint Paul, Minnesota. Calebrw (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging

Unresolved

It has been proposed (not by me) to merge {{GeoCompass}} (used on Chelmsford#Nearest places); and {{Compass-table}} (used on Marylebone#Location in Context) onto this template. To my mind, the latter looks the most accessible, in that it includes compass-directions as text, and linearises properly I've raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Accessibility#Template: Geographic Location. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is another template that appears to be appropriate to merge here. Pages using it are at: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Compass-table. --Eliyak T·C 16:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Since no body has discussed the merge, I will begin. I've seen this proposal to merge template for months now, and I agree with it. I think the three templates (this one and the two listed in the post above me) are all very similar and therefore redundant. Instead of three separate groups working on three separate templates, we should all join forces and make one good one. I support the merge. Killiondude (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I also support merging. I like the look of this one the best, and it is simple to set up.--roger6106 (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated both of the above for deletion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Compass roses

I can see how a single compass rose could help a reader figure out what this box represents. But:

1. There is no reason to decorate the margins with two of these—it should be used a a symbolic icon, not a decorative ornament.
2. These little disks don't look at all like compass roses. I first saw them on the Winnipeg article where the use of a winter photo is being discussed, and I thought they were snowflakes! Then I wondered if they were some kind of mandala or something. After studying the navigation box, I figured out they must be compass roses (instead of the other way ’round).
3. Clicking on the image is undesirable. It should be a bit more iconic, and not invite a click by being realistic or illustrative.

I don't know if any of these is ideal, but perhaps a better one can be chosen from these. —Michael Z. 2008-09-05 22:54 z

Maybe it can be placed in the centre of the four-way links, to actually serve as a compass rose? —Michael Z. 2008-09-05 22:56 z

I also think the compass roses don't serve a useful purpose and could be eliminated. It does the reader no good to click on them and be led to the standard Wiki image page. Furthermore, it it really necessary to have the cryptic "v-d-e" links visible over the righthand one? (A casual reader shouldn't get directed to THIS page when clickly idly on the "d".) Irv (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I made the washed out compass rose specifically to be as unobtrusive as possible (there's a discussion about this on this page). I would lean towards eliminating it altogether rather than replacing it with a bolder looking one (like the ones Michael proposed). At one point, the icon was replaceable, but the function has been disabled (due to over-use of non-free flag images in the geobox). Regarding the v-d-e links, they're standard for many templates. It might be worth discussing to hide them for unregistered readers, but this is not the place to discuss this. --Qyd (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should keep the current graphics. They're unobtrusive and helpful.--roger6106 (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Contiguity?

Is there any guidance on how this template is used with regard to contiguity? Are neighboring towns (or countries, etc.) expected to directly abut the center entity, or can a nearby entity be placed in the template that doesn't touch, provided that no other place name occupies that position? See Nashua, New Hampshire, for my specific example, where the town of Amherst, while not touching the city of Nashua's boundary, comes within 1/4 mile and is the only reasonable entity to place to the city's northwest. (The alternative would be to leave northwest blank.) --Ken Gallager (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The template is pretty flexible. I don't think there are any guidelines here. I have seen it used in at least one case to locate the nearest significant metropolitan area, bypassing smaller towns. --Eliyak T·C 16:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines/Suggestions for Use

Are there any guidelines or suggestions for when and where this should be used in an article on a city or town? Some cities seem to use it; others don't. Is there some guide for how to format city articles that I can look at? Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities#Article guidelines and conventions has links to some guidelines. Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian communities/Structure guideline recommends using the box at the bottom of articles after external links and before navboxes. --Qyd (talk) 02:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Exclude in print

Please add this template to Category:Exclude in print. --He!ko (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Preferred placement?

Is there a recommended placement within an article for this template? I ask because I've noticed recently that the template's been added to many U.S. county articles (which is great), but it was inserted in a spot that in a lot of cases messed up the article's layout. The user making the insertions is placing the template inside a geography subsection which often conflicts with the county infobox and leaves large tracts of empty whitespace in the middle of the text. (See Miami County, Blackford County, etc.)

It seems like Geographic Location might be best near the end of the article — that's where most other helpful, geographic-related navigation templates are situated. Just a thought Huwmanbeing ☀★ 18:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, considering it's build with class="navbox", it should be placed at the bottom, as is recommended for other navigational boxes. --Qyd (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the info. At a guess, it looks like the individual who's been making this insertion (an unregistered IP user) has already added it incorrectly to over 2000 county articles, and is continuing to do the same to more. I've asked on the IP's talk page for the user to add the template to the bottom, but based on other unanswered comments there I'm not hopeful of a response... Huwmanbeing ☀★ 10:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Any use of this?

What is the point of having this template? --212.36.9.177 (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Section Usage details that. Was there another point to your question? --Qyd (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, nearly all, if not absolutely all, articles on geographic locations (cities, countries, etc) contain a map, which displays the communities surrounding them very much properly and accurately, and thus the significance of this template is lost. Secondly, this template depicts the locations as if they were arranged in a grid of rows and columns with equal distances between them or on the squares of a chessboard. In reality locations are situated randomly in every particular place. So, the fictional town of Easton (as it is called in the example in the very same section "Usage") could be 2 km away from Centreville, but Southam City could be 300 km away from it. This great difference in the distances is not shown by the template in any way, which could be misleading for a reader. Moreover, we cannot expect that Easton will have exactly the same latitude as Centreville does. It may be, say, slightly to the south of our town, but still not as far south as Southeastopolis is, and another location may lie a little to the north of Easton, but still not so far north to make us use the Northeast field. In this case we will obviously have to list both Easton and the location in question at the East field, wrongly making them seem to be one and the same location, but in fact neither of them will be exactly to the east of our town. And even if we compromise and start listing every nearby location according to its approximate position in relation to Centreville, then we will sometimes have to enumerate several locations at each of the fields, which will make the template quite overburdened and difficult to read - this may happen if we decide to add the template to articles on some large countries that border on many geographic locations, e. g. other countries, seas, gulfs, etc. These are the reasons why I reckon this template is needles for Wikipedia (and sometimes confusing for a reader) and we can quite easily do without it. Greetings --212.36.9.163 (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: The IP address of my computer has changed since I started this section, but it's still me, the same person who started it and asked about the point of having the template. --212.36.9.163 (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no rule or policy that says this needs to be used for every "place" article. I think it should be judged on an article-by-article basis. Sometimes it is a useful template for a specific article, sometimes not. Killiondude (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

First, articles with maps linking surrounding locations are extremely rare. Second, I hope the average readers does not assume that if two links are aligned, then linked articles subjects are equidistant. I'm sure this template has its uses. I'm not convinced that the template should generally be removed from articles, but I would welcome a case-by-case discussion. Is the one in Geography of Cuba too crowded? --Qyd (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

While this template may be useful for cities, it certainly is redundant for countries. In the lead paragraph, all surrounding countries are stated and linked and there's a map in the infobox. --Tone 11:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Request

{{editprotected}} Just wondering if tnavbar could be changed to navbar to avoid an extra redirect? Similar to what was done with Navbox -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 April 2013

please make this change to the template (i.e., this version of the sandbox) which adds two optional features:

1. by using |noicon=true, the decorative compass image is suppressed per MOS:ICON
2. by using |width=auto, the width of the template is automatically resize, and not float below a right floating elements (e.g., see Colliers, Newfoundland and Labrador).

Frietjes (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Please, update documentation. Ruslik_Zero 19:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

thank you, but a small typo. I forgot that the navbox class includes 'clear:both' and a width declaration. so, to really get something that doesn't float below the infobox, we need to add 'width:auto; clear:none' when width is set to auto. so, please update the code to use this version of the sandbox. I will update the documentation. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 April 2013

please update to this version of the sandbox. this fixes a few issues (1) the current version makes it impossible to linewrap the Centre link, since the direction icons are in the same table cell as the text. this edit request corrects the issue by splitting the direction icons from the cell text. (2) the current version uses 30% widths when noicon=yes, instead of 33% widths. this is technically not correct, since with noicon=yes, there are no 5% icon columns, so this can be increased. I have switched it to use 33% all the time, and reduced the widths of the icon columns to zero with 5px padding, which increases the space available to text. (3) it moves the redundant text-align:center style statements to the top of the table.

the testcases demonstrate the linewrap issue, and shows that there is no significant change in the appearance for the other cases. the reason for this request is demonstrated in Division No. 6, Subd. A, Newfoundland and Labrador. Frietjes (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 19:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

 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)

 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)

 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 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:GeoCompass (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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)