I know you're a new editor, so I hope you understand the spirit of this message. I noticed you are making changes to infobox maps on many articles without first discussing these proposed changes on the article talk pages, nor gaining consensus.
I understand that you think the maps you are using are "better" than the "pushpin" style maps, however not all editors may agree with you. I have reverted the Colorado Springs article map because your map pointed to Denver not Colorado Springs However the bigger question is whyy don't you start a discussion with other editors to see what others, who may have more experience in the geographic arena might think? I think you may find this is a friendly place.
In all honesty, the new maps do not seem like an improvement to me, and I wish you would refrain from these changes until there is more discussion - in a broad way. I realize that from your perspective, you are improving the encyclopedia, and we welcome the efforts of new editors, but please understand that Wikipedia has certain ways that things have been done for many years. Change can be good, but it can also be disruptive, so how about slowing down, and gaining consensus first? Thanks in advance, and happy editing! Netherzone (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: hi from someone who is a very experienced editor. If you are speaking honestly, you apparently do not follow WP:BRD, a common and fully accepted best practice on Wikipedia. Editors such as SkunkaMunka do not need to wait on talk page discussions in order to try out changes. If you feel any specific map changes are poor, feel free then to revert and discuss. ɱ(talk)22:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ɱ, thanks for your message. I reverted three of SkunkaMunkas edits on three different articles. I then started this discussion here as a way to find out more information about their changes. My message is not a warning, is the opening of a conversation, and I thought it was phrased considerately and diplomatically. Their Colorado Springs edit pointed to Denver which is not the right city, and I was thanked for my revert by another editor. Their edit on Aurora, Colorado appeared to be a pattern so I reverted. Their San Jose, Calif. edit had previously been reverted by another editor before SM added it back. I was thanked for that edit. I used edit summaries in my three reverts on these three articles. Then I started the discussion. I thought that in the BRD cycle the onus was on the person who made the bold change and I did not know the discussion could not take place on a user talk page. I do make mistakes, however I did not make these three edits in bad faith. Netherzone (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! That seems like an odd error, I will test it then revert and immediately investigate. Thank you for pointing this out, and I will give you feedback. SkunkaMunka (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I found the issue. There was a problem with the caption code and I can fix the issue if you like. Also, thank you very much for being respectful to these edits. Not everyone is like that. I am following BRD, which goes by implementing a Beneficial idea, if a user is not satisfied, Revert, then Discuss. SkunkaMunka (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SkunkaMunka, it pointed to Africa. Equitorial Guinea to be exact. That seemed far enough away from Colorado that it was not a bold edit, but a mistake. I also believe that the article's former three maps that showed Aurora contextually was much better. Netherzone (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SkunkaMunka and Netherzone: as far as I've seen, SkunkaMunka's maps do point to the right places, and show the right boundary data. However, two minor things seemingly led Netherzone to find that the maps are flawed, perhaps without a possible fix. The changes you need, SkunkaMunka, are to change the caption in each article you add maps to. So a Denver article should say "title=Denver", and a Colorado Springs article should say "title=Colorado Springs". The other thing, that Netherzone is more concerned with right above, is that some maps are not centered properly. Without setting frame coordinates, some maps may move the frame to hover over the coordinates of 0, 0, which is near Africa. SkunkaMunka, you can fix these errors by adding in "|frame-coord={{coord|9.999|-9.999}}" (substitute all the 9s for the coordinates at or near the center of the city). ɱ(talk)23:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ɱ, and SkunkaMunka here is a screenshot from the Aurora, Colorado article history. On my computer, it points to the west coast of Africa. Screenshot for illustration purposes how the interactive map on the Aurora, Colorado article pointed to the coast of Western Africa.Netherzone (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as stated, that is the coordinates 0, 0. All one has to do is adjust what area the map is supposed to frame (adding "|frame-coord={{coord|9.999|-9.999}}"). ɱ(talk)23:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that my work was reverted on Fort Collins, that map had nothing wrong and was proper. There should be no reverting without good reasons. SkunkaMunka (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Map error, Fort Collins, Colorado points to the west coast of Africa
I did not make that edit, Magnolia677 was the editor. I'm guessing they corrected it because it was an error. The Fort Collins article history map also pointed to the west coast of Africa. See screen shot from article history. I am curious whether the new interactive map tool or feature will be easy for others to use who are not as sophisticated in coding, or if it will be something that will seamlessly run itself moving forward. Is there a name for the feature/program/script/app/tool (not sure what to call it) for interactive maps? Netherzone (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SkunkaMunka, given that there's been a few people opposing mapframe simply over the small issue of the display not auto-setting, you're best-off only keeping interactive maps up if you can get them to work near-immediately (that is, set the frame coordinates so they immediately display in the right region). Notify me if you have issues and I can attempt to fix them. ɱ(talk)14:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's where BRD comes into play - you or they can open a discussion at Talk:San Jose, California where you describe the benefits of modern mapping. And as I've told you in the past, Wikipedia doesn't have one set standard across the board. So if San Jose editors don't like it, that's fine. Affect positive change in ways you can. ɱ(talk)14:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ:, @SkunkaMunka:, Thank you for the link to the essay. I don't know if either of you are seeking feedback at this time re: Mapframe, but I thought I'd share this -- After reading the essay, I tried testing it out on several articles. The essay says: "All you need to do is put "mapframe = yes" in an infobox in order to show a map." I followed these directions, but got an error message every time. I tested it on five different types of infoboxes: Historic site, Settlement, River, NRHP, and Spring, but the map did not display, and the error said "unknown parameter" or something similar. Is there another step in the process that I'm missing? Netherzone (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The essay may not be clear enough. It says that it is "possible and is currently being implemented". The automatic mapping, using just that short bit of code, is already possible in many infoboxes, but not all. See Wikipedia:Mapframe maps in infoboxes; the blue-checked items should have this mapping be automatic. Make sure to also include the pipe symbol. ɱ(talk)15:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you implement it into a city article, you must put in this line where the pushpins were: | image_map = {{Maplink|frame=yes|plain=y|frame-width=300|frame-height=200|frame-align=center|zoom=4|type=point|title=Denver|marker=city|type2=shape|stroke-width2=2|stroke-color2=#808080}} Replace “Denver” with the city name, and that’s simple. SkunkaMunka (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn’t realize it would do that. The code is (| image_map = {{Maplink|frame=yes|plain=y|frame-width=300|frame-height=200|frame-align=center|zoom=4|type=point|title=Denver|marker=city|type2=shape|stroke-width2=2|stroke-color2=#808080}}) SkunkaMunka (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SkunkaMunka, hi, and thanks for the suggestion. I'm not on Discord, but will think about joining. If I do I will look for you there. I think the mapframe tool could be a good thing once the bugs get worked out and it becomes a little more user friendly. If I don't join Discord, I promise not to bombard you with tons of questions on your talk page (but maybe occasionally if that's ok with you), If a central discussion opens up somewhere on Wikipedia, please do let me know the link. All the best, Netherzone (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m fine with you bombarding my talk page. As a very young editor, I have nothing to do except Wikipedia, and I’m good with that. But keep in mind discord is much, much smoother. SkunkaMunka (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
