User talk:Caroig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Archive 1 (2004-2006)

[edit] Mountains

Ahoj. During the move vote of Greater Fatra range I noticed you are touristing with backpack through the mountains. Do you plan to start later some stubs about mountains? I enjoyed your stubs about Greater Fatra peaks several months ago. - Darwinek 22:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, I'd like to. I usually start stubs when I have some snaps taken by myself, about places I like. I'll probably leave that for fall or winter, I prefer being outdoors in summer, hiking, trekking (for which I've had unfortunately very little time this year). – Caroig (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Geobox html title

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox html title, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:Geobox html title fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:Geobox html title, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plzeň Region/Sandbox

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Plzeň Region/Sandbox, by Darwinek (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Plzeň Region/Sandbox fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Plzeň Region/Sandbox, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs

Hello. I know thou are busy but just want to know your opinion. Czech-geo-stub has been recently split to 13 stubs representing Czech regions (kraje), however there seems to be two old sub-sub-stubs {{Chrudim-geo-stub}} and {{PardubiceDistrict-geo-stub}}, both based on district division of the country. I fear this is the wrong way to go, imagine having stubs for every district in the future. I am against it and probably will propose merging of these two into {{Pardubice-geo-stub}}. What do you think? - Darwinek 12:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much use in having too many stubs for such a relatively small country so I'd definitely merge those two. All those locations which are stubbed with those templates are also listed at least three categories so these stubs are somehow redundant. – Caroig (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I nominated them for merge as described above. Please vote and comment (your English is better and you know these issues) at WP:SFD. Thank you. - Darwinek 12:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Region noC

A template you created, Template:Infobox Region noC, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 18:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:UNSECO World Heritage Site - small logo.svg

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:UNSECO World Heritage Site - small logo.svg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. Thank you. HermesBot 16:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collapsible list

Hello. I have a question. Collapsible lists included also in your Geoboxes doesn't appear to me, the "show" button is not visible. I have IE6, in Firefox it appears normally. Do I need some plugin? - Darwinek 10:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Strange, it works for me even in the buggy IE6. Which Geoboxes are affected? Also, you need to have Javascript enabled. – Caroig (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I downloaded the latest Java and enabled the settings. It seems to work now. My bad, sorry for bothering you. - Darwinek 13:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, actually, Javascript and Java are two completely unrelated things (even though the names suggest otherwise), even if the latter weren't present at your computer, Javascript would still work as it is implemented by the browser. It seems the problem was in the offed Javascript. – Caroig (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geobox for bells

I have been talking with User:VerruckteDan about incorporating a geobox for bells (Liberty Bell for example). Most of the discussion has taken place on his page here Freedom Bell, and think it would great if you could give some of your insight on the page per his suggestion. Figured I would give you the link rather than bringing the discussion here and talking between two pages. Thanks if you can assist in this.--Kranar drogin 23:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Hello David. I need your help. You are also a geography fan and frequently edit Czech Republic-related geography articles and you know those issues. There is a problem with {{Jeseník District}} template. German user Bolekpolivka continues to add also historical villages to this template which confuses readers and is not correct. You already know that such templates are supposed to show only current existing municipalities, in this case according to the Czech law, see e.g. ČSÚ. Therefore I am asking you to help me keep this template in correct state. Thank you. - Darwinek 09:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I agree with you, and marked the box accordingly. I hope that it will satisfy both parties (although reading some of the insults Darwinek and his friends are throwing around, somehow I doubt it). Bolekpolivk is indeed a good man and an important historian and just the fact he is taking the time from his busy schedule to add to Wikipedia is pretty amazing. I do not have anything against Darwinek, but he does need (in my eyes) a lecture in proper behavior. He does not seem to want to understand why Bolekpolivka created the template in the first place. Instead destroying it, he could have a suggestion how to improve it or clarify it. But I guess vandalizing it was easier. Best regards,Weissundblau 12:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 10:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hello. Is separate article: Frýdlant nad Ostravicí (Little District) really necessary? I would propose merging it to Frýdlant nad Ostravicí article. - Darwinek 17:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. Well, there exist articles on some Czech Districts, the old ones. However, they are usually filled just with list of settlements. My reason for creating this articles was the upgrade of the Geobox template to version 2. I don't think it's good to have two (or even more) geoboxes in one page. As for Frýdlant nad Ostravicí (Little District) I think it can be filled by some sensible text given the Little District equals the Mikroregion Frýdlantsko (http://www.beskydy-obce.cz/) about which I might write some more text eventually.

This goes beyond just this Little District. It's a question I've wanted to raise for some time, i.e. whether to use the old Districts, which are rather disfunct nowadays as most of their agenda has been shifted either to the regions or to these Little Districts. Most new maps of administrative divisons of the Czech republic show these Little Districts only, I've got a couple of them hanging over my desk. Also the maps at the Czech State Administration Portal show the Little Districts (link), if you enlarge any region, you get the Little Districts boundaries. And last but not least I think the Little Districts are better for Wikipedia as they comprise more "natural" regions. The old Big Districts were created sometime in the sixties (I guess) to have more or less the same area but didn't reflect any "natural" regions. Which I believe the Little Districts do. But as I wrote at the beginning, it's a question I'd like to raise someplace, what I wrote is just my views on this topic. – Caroig (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a difficult issue. I am in favour of classic districts, since little districts is a new issue and needs settling down. Signs on the roads still announce "Okres Nymburk" instead of "Malý okres Nymburk", districts still exist. I would wait several months till some further reform will happen. Czech Wikipedia also still uses districts as a secondary (after regions) subdivision. As you can see, on the EN wiki there is also a convention to use districts. Broad consensus and huge work would be needed to change that and reflect in all articles. Till that happen I would prefer staying with classic districts to avoid confusion and double standards. It can be changed in the future after some consensus but that needs more than just two of us. - Darwinek 10:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pardubice coat-of-arms.png

This does not seems to be as correct as Image:Pardubice_CoA_CZ.svg, so I have tagged it for deletion. If you disagree, please reply.--Jusjih 01:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't, the SVG version is definitely better. – Caroig (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whitespace in Template:Geobox/type/range

Hi! I saw you reverted my whitespace edits in Template:Geobox/type/range. I find the templates utterly messy when whitespace is not preformatted like this, and I have previously fixed a number of Infobox templates like this without any concerns from other users. Your revert-rationale was that all other Geoboxes did not have nice whitespace formatting, I would say that is an argument to fix the other ones (I might help out). --Berland 18:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand no-one else has objected to the new formatting either. The old "white-spaced" Geoboxes took up too much space also because every parameter was on a separate line. In the Geobox 2 series we're putting parameters that logically belong together on a single line. You've changed the formatting only in the metric version leaving the imperial one in the non-white-spaced style so it was a bit confusing. Let's see what other users think before changing all the blank templates. BTW, I've also fixed two sites where you added the Geobox 2.0 template, if there are multiple cities, countries etc. they should be put in as separated, indexed parameters (country, country1, country2 etc.) similarly to other infoboxes. – Caroig (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's true I left the imperial version untouched, at least for the moment. Thanks for the other fixes you did, I just discovered Geobox 2 today, and it was just some initial testing. --Berland 19:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, splitting multiple items into indexed field was used in Geoboxes 1.0 as well. And as of the whitespaces, some users complained the formatting with too many whitespaces and each paremeter on a single line was too long. Let's try the new formatting out for a while, if it isn't popular we can switch back to the old style. OK? – Caroig (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bridge Geobox

I worked on a bridge template! Here is the bridge geobox template I have so far, using pieces from the standard Geobox 2.0 template, VerruckteDan's geobox template, and fields from the National Bridge Inventory (http://www.nationalbridges.com). Please look at it and let me know what you think. Feel free to make any improvements as well! Skeetidot 01:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the bridge template example I had was overly complex, I tried a simpler example. See this example, feel free to make and updates, and let me know if we could add this to the types of geoboxes (for example, there's a Geobox|Bell). Skeetidot 04:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I posted some comments to the page with your previous proposal som time ago and I somehow expected a discussion to erupt there, that's why I've been silent. Anyway, I've posted my reply on the Geobox talk page as the topic might be interesting for other editors. My version of your proposal is here: User:Caroig/Sandbox/Bridge. – Caroig (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geobox

Thank you for your prompt reaction[1] and for all your work on the geobox template. I have just started to use it for Slovak settlements and it looks really good (see Banská Bystrica). I greatly appreciate flexibility of the data fields and the wonderful location maps. Thanks again! Tankred 04:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a glitch, it should have really looked like that. As of Slovakia, I've already geoboxed a few locations mainly in and around the Greater Fatra (Veľká Fatra National Park, Tlstá…) nad also Stužica in another region. As of settlements, most of them in Slovakia use another, Slovak-specific template. The Geobox template can include all its fields and, as I believe, offers a bit more, but I rather place the geoboxes only where no other infobox template is present, but od course I'd be only happy if it becomes the default template for Slovak settlements. I've geoboxed one village without an infobox - (Necpaly). I'm also planning to create the detailed maps for all Slovak regions, those as you can see for the Žilina and Prešov Region. – Caroig (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have done some work on the Slovak Town Infobox and I have put these infoboxes into many articles about Slovak cities and towns. But your geobox has made the old Slovak Town Infobox obsolete. Frankly, I think even the standard Infobox City should be replaced because the geobox template is much better. I hope it will be used in more and more articles. Tankred 05:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Well, these geoboxes are really cool and in some ways even better than the City 'boxes, though I don't know all the features yet, so I've just done what I knew. Well, it isn't bad, that "semi-automated" tool, and that could ease a bit our work, though I fear some settlements will need data correction. Regards, MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The population data from the Slovak Infobox can be split into parts easily, worse is the coordinates field which call another template … that's a thig the tool can't handle now (it's just a set of regular expression which split the data into parts and then fill the new template with them). The tool isn't anything too sofisticated, just a simple PHP script to convert the old geoboxes to the new ones. You can answer at your talk page, I have it in my watchlist, it's easier to follow the discussion when it's kept on one place only. – Caroig (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slovak Wikipedians' notice board

Hi. You might be interested in checking out the brand new Wikipedia:Slovak Wikipedians' notice board. All Wikipedians interested in Slovakia or subjects somehow related to Slovakia are invited to use this noticeboard as a tool for better organizing their activities, making announcements to others with similar interests, and discussing any actual issues related to their work on Wikipedia. You are welcome to add this notice board to your watchlist, so that you could see when it is updated and thus take part in any projects, initiatives, and improvements relating to articles about Slovakia. Also, you are welcome to report your own articles here so they could be peer-reviewed and expanded by other contributors. Tankred 16:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've been planning to post the existence of the Geobox 2 & calibrated Slovakia maps someplace, so it might be the right place. Just to let people now they exist and the editors might choose whether to use them or not. I'll probably do that when I've created maps for all Slovak Region thus offering a complete solution for Slovak geography.

By the way, there's a semi-automated conversion tool written in php and it might be quite simply extended to enable automatic conversion from the existing Slovak template to to Geobox 2. So if you're planning to convert more locations… – Caroig (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would love to convert all the Slovak town infoboxes into new geoboxes (that will hopefully set an example for other countries too), but it would take a lot of time to do it manually or in AWB. It would be absolutely awesome if you can modify the PHP tool you have mentioned. Unfortunately, I have no knowledge of PHP, so I will not be of much help. But please let me know if I can help you in any other way. Tankred 21:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to. I'll have to change the PHP code a bit though as I've already stumbled upon a problem, not difficult to solve but it requires a deeper change of the tool code. I was going to change the code anyway, so no problem. It might take a few days, though, I don't find too much time for Wikipedia usually. – Caroig (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update and enjoy your hiking trip! Tankred 20:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geobox2 - Flag border

Is it possible to specify some sort of the flag border? There are some flags with the white strip on top or bottom that blends with the Geobox background. Example: Podebrady. Look for the (IMHO) good solution at the infobox on the czech version of the page. --mikeshk 06:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's now possible through the flag_border and symbol_border fields, if they're assigned any values, a border is displayed around the image. It's a lighter gray than in the Czech version as the English wikipedia sets this color as the default for image borders. – Caroig (talk) 14:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect placement of dot in the maps

Hi Caroig. I've just added your Geobox to the Komárno article, however, the dot is for some reason wrongly indicating town's placement (south of Danube), because GeoHack links (e.g. Google Maps) or Mini Atlas (globe) are pointing correctly. Should I use manual placement or is this some bug/error in the map settings or whatever? Cheers, MarkBA ^t/c/@ 14:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Should be OK now. It was caused by bad calibration data for the map (at {{Geobox locator Slovakia}}), I uploaded more versions of the map but didn't update the calibration accordingly, FYI the calibration is just the coordinates of the top left and bottom right corners of the map and its height/width ratio. It will never be 100% precise as the source map the outline map of Slovakia is based on is not in the cylidrical (Mercator) projection but in the conical one, though the distortion is minimal. If the new calibration causes some other misplacements, let me now. – Caroig (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, when adding population figures, it's better to put it raw, unformatted, numbers. They are "nicely formatted" on the output anyway and can be used for calculations then. You can simply add auto to the population_density field and the value is calculated automatically and if the population figure gets updated in future, you don't have to update the density field. – Caroig (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this issue, now the map is showing correctly placement. I've noticed it also moved with other maps as well, but looks like in correct way so far. If there will be one with odd one I'll let you know. To the 2nd comment, I've already said that I don't all the features yet and so I'm filling data according to the existing examples. Cheers, MarkBA ^t/c/@ 20:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It was not meant as a critical one, it was just to let you know there exists this feature, which can be useful for future updates. Off topic, I've got no snap from Vrútky I'm afraid, 'twas raining hard on my way there and time pressure on the way back. – Caroig (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geobox (River) questions and comments

Hi Caroig, I have some comments and questions on the new Geobox 2, but first I have one on the old Geobox River. I am using it in Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek) and in the source and mouth sections, the word coordinates is not on the same line as the hyphen. I tried making the box wider (by making the map and image wider), but this did not make it so that the word and hyphen are on the same line. Can you fix it? I will ask more question and have some comments next. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to include a locator dot (or perhaps locator dots) on a locator map in Geobox River? I think if one dot were included, it would be best for the mouth location, and if two were included (of different colors) then one on the mouth and the other at the source might be useful. I did a map with a mouth dot on it at Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek) for an idea of what this would be like. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Cariog, thanks for "fixing" Plunketts Creek - unfortunately I had tried that too, but the one character conversion omits several things that were in the Geobox before, so I reverted it. Specifically the coordinates (latitude and longitude) for the source disappear, the wikilinked townships for the source and mouth both disappear (the villages are still there, but do not have articles), and the state disappears for both (which I am OK with as it says all of the creek is in Pennsylvania, but this could be a problem for rivers in more than one state). I also note that the split puts the footnotes out of order (so they are now 1, 5, 2, 4, 1, 2, 3 in the Geobox, where they were 1, 2, 3, 1, 4, 5...). Finally, could you put in an option to turn off the "River" underneath the name? I understand the rationale, but I think here it is obvious this is a stream / river / creek. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner, I just didn't have time for Wikipedia … As of Geobox 1 and Geobox 2, one of the reasons for creating the second version was the need to keep an eye on six or seven various templates which did basically the same and had more or less the same fields. The second version is more versatile and its code is also more efficient and thus the output is generated much faster. There might be, actually there obvioulsy are, some regressions/issues with it.

As of the coordinates split in two lines. That's not an issue with the Geoboxes but with IE. The space between the hyphen and the coordinates word is not a normal space but the so called non-breakable space (&nbsp;) which should prevent the line to be split. Under certain circumstances IE just ignores this. But there's a way how to prevent this IE behavior; I've updated the Geobox 2 template accordingly.

And as of the other issues, I'll look into them, it might take some time (in terms of days) as I first need to catch up on sleep … So it's no problem if you use Geobox 1 on this article for now while I'm fixing Geobox 2.

The rationale for the "River" being displayed below the name is to diffentiate between the actual proper name of the location and the generic part of the name (which is sometimes an official part of the name, sometimes not). In this case, the name field should contain just "Loyalsock" and the category field should have "Creek". – Caroig (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, adding the locator dot placement for one of the river locations of course possible without much additional coding. I would have thought of source preferably but the mouth seems more logical. I'll add that feature. Having two locator dots would require a bit more work though. It wouldn't be too difficult either but I'll try to figure out a more general purpopse solution to this. – Caroig (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Caroig, I can work on just putting a fresh Geobox 2 in the article and that should work. I think one dot is sufficient (at the mouth). I also understand the Creek rationale better now too, but am still not sure I like the name split on two lines - the official name is "Plunketts Creek" (it is a tributary of Loyalsock Creek). Rest well and thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar awarded to Caroig for all your work on Geoboxes and help, especially with Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek). Given with respect and admiration, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the source coordinates note is not displaying in the Plunketts Creek Geobox, although the ref information shows up in the References correctly. The mouth coordinates note does display correctly. Sorry to be a pest, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the barnstar. And don't hesitate o post any future issues, hope they won't be that numerous. – Caroig (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks yet again for all your help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slovak cities and towns

[edit] The tool

Hi Caroig, how are you? I hope you enjoyed the mountains last weekend. I know you're working on several projects at the same time, so I wonder if you have had a chance to look at that semi-automated PHP tool that can transform old Slovak Town Infoboxes into new fancy geoboxes. Btw, I started to add geoboxes to the Slovak mountains outside Velka Fatra. Geoboxes rock! Tankred 23:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking. I've finally caught up on sleep, it was a busy week and I haven't had any time for Wikipedia at all.

Anyway, the PHP tool is here in much better shape then the previous version. I just wanted to make the code more re-usable so that conversions from other infoboxes could be easily added. It has two functions:

• it converts fields from an infobox (so far, only Infobox Slovak Town) to Geobox fields, not only by renaming them but by parsing their values and converting them to corresponding Geobox fields, e.g the coordinates field from Infobox Slovak Town is split into lat_d, 'lat_m etc.
• it adds various fields or reformats them in a standard way for given geographic areas, so far, only Slovak settlements are covered, e.g. it adds the map (and for Žilina and Prešov Regions also the region map), formats the post code, area code (it keeps the Area code label as it's standard English term for Phone prefix, but I can change it if you prefer Phone prefix), puts the car registration plate to the code field (it better fits there, to a section with all other codes), sets the Region and District link as [[Žilina Region|Žilina]], turns on the country flag … This also works on articles which have already been "geoboxed" so it's easy to standardize how the fields are used.

There are two ways how you can use the tool.

• If you're using the Opera browser, follow this link: http://wikipedia.paloch.net/opera.xhtml and click on the second link (version 2). It creates an Opera button, which you can then place among other buttons on any Opera toolbar. And them, when viewing a Wikipedia page just click on it and that's it.
• Not using Opera? Just copy the following code into your monobook.js and refresh the browser's cache (the page will tell you how).

 //add Geobox convert link 
 addOnloadHook(function(){
 var editTab = document.getElementById("ca-edit");
 if (!editTab) return;
 addPortletLink("p-cactions", 'http://wikipedia.paloch.net/Geobox2.php?page='+location.href,
 "geobox", "ca-geobox", "Convert to geobox 2","", editTab.nextSibling);
 //});

Then you'll get a new tab next to the stadard 'edit' tab and clicking on it when on a wikipedia page will invoke the tool.

The tool's far from perfect. But it should work, I've given it kick-off at Blatnica, Slovakia and tried it, without saving, on many other pages. – Caroig (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I am so excited about this tool! It will help us a lot. Thank you for your excellent work. Tankred 23:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If it works … I've just spent some time getting rid of a glitch … when you wanted to save the converted page it said a newer version existed. It should be OK now. – Caroig (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Excelent tool!! It saves much time! Thank you. One question: Could it automatically replace the problematic '=' character in 'website' parameter with its entity? Thank you. --mikeshk 13:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it could and this has just been implemented :-). So far only support for Geobox|settlement exists, other Geoboxes will be added in due time. As of the country specific updates, the same as for Slovakia can be done for the Czech Republic too, just Czech locations don't have a single other Infobox (there're just mixture of Geoboxes, Infobox Town and plain tables). Nonetheless, some updates such as automatic maps, some sort of formatting can be added. The tool's code isn't very clean, but I'm not a programmer, my knowledge of PHP are very limited. If you're interested, I can send you the tool code and you can do whatever updates … The code is commented but probably not in a very clean way. – Caroig (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A bug

Huh? Looks like something got messed up. In Bratislava, government is thrice, once at the incorrect place, and coordinates somehow disappeared (and coordinates also apply also to other articles). MarkBA ^t/c/@ 15:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I probably clicked on "replace in all text" instead of "replace in the selected text" in one of my last edits. Fixed, at least it seems so. – Caroig (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I managed to extract the direct link for the Slovak statistical site, see at Blatnica, Slovakia, most settlement geoboxes contain data from some public database so it might be useful to have a dedicated field for this. Unfortunately I don't see any easy way how to make the link generation automated, the address contains the location's code, not the name so unless I have a list of all locations' names it must be done manually. – Caroig (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

Hmm, I don't know if I can trust statistics field, because I don't know by what circumstances it works and even though I could see an example, I got "blank" page, e.g. this one (Revúca), but some others work correctly (Veľké Kapušany for example). That's why I'm still using footnotes field. Or am I doing something wrong? MarkBA ^t/c/@ 13:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. There seems to be a problem on those Slovak pages the Geoboxer extracts the data from. Some seem to have the Kód field wrong, just five digits while the MOS/MIS database uses 6 digit codes. It can be fixed manually by looking up the appropriate code in the MOSMIS database and then replacing the number between stObec&#61; and the following &. – Caroig (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And please add any comments or bug reprts at the end of the talk page as a new section. I always have to hit the history tab to look up where the last edit has been made. This concerns everyone. – Caroig (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		I, Tankred, award you this da Vinci Barnstar for your amazing Template:Geobox and all the related tools that make editing Wikipedia easier and reading Wikipedia more joyful. Tankred 23:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! DaVinci star, that sounds real great. I just hope now, when the Geobox 2 is more or less finished and the tool set up, I'll find more time improving the articles themselves, with maps and images because that was why I started this template after all;

I look forward to it:-) Btw, we have a problem with the map of Slovakia in geoboxes and this problem is very similar to the one that you have recently resolved. At that time, some objects (e.g. Komarno) were shifted too far to the south (or north). We have now the same situation with the east-west axis. See for example the geobox at Devín. Unfortunately, I am not sure how to fix it. Tankred 00:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem lies here: Template:Geobox locator Slovakia. The figures are the coordinates of the top left and bottom right corner of the map. In this situation a minor adjustment of the left figure should help. It's just the maps are too tiny and any rounding affects them, so they usually need some additional adjustment. Another issue is the map is in the conical projection, which isn't perfect for this purpose, but I haven't had any better. The distortion is minor, but it can cause minor misplacement near the corners. – Caroig (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello and congratulations to your barnstar. I planned to give you one but Tankred was quicker. :) As for your Geobox, it seems to me it is going better and better and I am more used to it. I have one technical question. I noticed that the elevation and coordinates of towns show under "Center" section. Problem is that many of e.g. Czech towns use some average elevation from their cadastrial area and also officially given coordinates often point to some average place in the town. Is there any possibility to show elevation and coordinates in the Geobox without the "Center" inscription? Thanks. - Darwinek 15:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the congrats. As of the elevation and coordinates, I've introduced this feature as it seemed odd for e.g. a Prague to have just one elevation entry for the whole city. The coordinates and elevation relate to a single point within the settlement and what that is should be somehow shown. One can suppose that such a point will be the center, thus the template prints Center by default. But of course the point might be elsewhere, municipal office, castle … In the geoboxes I started I indicated what the center was by using the location field (see e.g. Rokycany). If the point to which the coordinates relate is not the center you might change the displayed label (inscription) by using the location_type field and set it to e.g. neutral Location.

When I was adding the Geobox to a Czech or Slovak location I always read the coordinates data from a map (not from the corresponding Czech or Slovak wiki or the official website) for a place that could be considered its center and I indicated what that place was (I did that systematically for all larger settlements within the Pilsen Region). However, I usually didn't find out what the elevation data related to so it might not correspond to the coordinates; though I don't think the error would be significant, though.

You're right that the coordinates one finds at official websites usually point to some average point, but this could be simply fixed by checking the appropriate map. On the other hand the official elevation will probably relate to a certain point within the settlement, most probably the municipal office, central square … – Caroig (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I had been thinking about this before and I had a development version which, when the field location was empty, didn't print this line at all and printed the location and coordinates data as full fields, not as subfields (i.e. as bold text without the hyphen at the beginning). But I didn't include it in the final version because this way the template shows the editors the field (the center) should be indicated. Implementing this back is a question of a few extra words in the code. If that behavior is preferred by more users I see no problem putting it back. – Caroig (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 21:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geoboxer

I have added some rules for your converter from sk:wikipedia to en.wikipedia. Unfortunately, I am not sure I will be able to help more because I have no experience with PHP. Btw, I have tried to use the Geoboxer to change the infobox of Dubnica nad Vahom into a geobox, but it wanted to create a river geobox (with a messy sequence of elements) instead of the standard settlement geobox. Can you look at it please? Tankred 15:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep I registered that. Thanks a lot. I must have accidently uploaded the new version of the tool I'm working on. It should be OK now. – Caroig (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek) thanks

	Thanks again for all your help with the new Geobox - Plunketts Creek (Loyalsock Creek) made featured article today! Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's great, it made me finally read the article, nice read indeed. Hope I haven't screwed anything for this article, I've been working on some Geobox upgrades recently. – Caroig (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words about Plunketts Creek. Actually I found a bug in Geobox 2 (River version). The "| watershed_imperial" field under Geography takes square miles but shows them as square kilometers, then converts the number to square miles. This is in both Larrys Creek (which will be Today's Featured Article on October 19, so I switched it to Geobox 2 today) and Plunketts Creek. Larrys Creek should be 89.1 square miles (230.8 km²), but displays as "Basin 89.1 km² (34.4 mi²)" in the Geobox. Plunketts Creek is similar (and apparently made it through FAC with this error). It almost looks as if the metric conversion field just wasn't switched here to imperial. Thanks in advance for your help with this, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Actually, I started the Geoboxes as there was no usable infobox for articles I started working on. Since then, they've been consuming most of my wiki time (I'm not complaining, I've chose that myself). Now, when most of the work's been done, I'm really looking for writing, adding picture and maps. It's just fine people write great pieces about other stuff than IT and technology on Wikipedia. – Caroig (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much again - if there is ever anything I can do for you (review an article, whatever) please just ask, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geoboxes etc.

I've been working on standardizing geodata. As part of this, I've been scanning infoboxes for possible geographic data, and produced a list of candidate infoboxes which I hope might be of interest to you in your geobox work. I've made a list of my findings so far at User:The Anome/Infobox audit. -- The Anome 09:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll carry on the conversation at Template talk:Geobox#Template use audit. -- The Anome 09:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

Hello. I know you are much interested in the Czech Rep. municipalities and geography articles and like to have things pretty consistent. Therefore I ask you to vote in following AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hevstäf‎. It is very probably a hoax, just check yourself. Thank you. - Darwinek 20:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geobox categories

Hi, is there a bug with the geobox categories, or is there something wrong on my pages? e.g. Gmina Niemcza. Also what are the alternatives to 'City' as the type - or will anything do? Thanks Kotniski 17:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, call {{Geobox | City}} is only supported for backward compatibility, you should use {{Geobox | Settlement}} and set the appropriate settlement type to the category field. If I'm getting it right, "gmina" is not a settlement but an administrative unit, thus it the template call should be {{Geobox | Region}}; the Region subgroup being the one to be used for administrative units. I think it might be useful to read the documentation for the {{Geobox}} template, there's quite a lot of useful information.

As of categories, this is an auto-generated field which reads the country and state parameters which shouldn't therefore contain any wikicode. Anyway, the state field should only be used for administrative units on the level of a state; from what I'm reading at Voivodeship, this isn't a state level administrative unit and should rather be assigned to the region field, gmina should go to the district or municipality field. This is not because I like it that way but because the Geoboxes are designed to be used in a standard way to allow for a lot of automation. I've temporarily made the Geobox category genaration ignore the state field for Poland. – Caroig (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I can update the Geoboxer code to include the recommended fixes (plus some more) on Polish settlements/regions that make use of the template. – Caroig (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. There are actually three levels of division involved: Voivodeship - Powiat/County -Gmina. So it seems if Gmina is in the district field, then County has to go in the region field, and this forces Voivodeship into the state field - or is there another way? And you seem to be saying that the state field can't contain a piped link (like I have state_type=Voivodeship|state=[[Lower Silesian Voivodeship|Lower Silesian]]) - is there any way round this (to avoid displaying the word Voivodeship twice, I mean)? Kotniski 19:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There are actually five fields in this section: country, state, region (Voivodeship), district (County) and municipality (Gmina). The piped links are OK in the region field and downwards. The country and state fields can be linked to a Wikipedia database of flags. But it is still rather a question of consistency, a state is a highly autonomous unit of state administration such as those in the US or Germany. – Caroig (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, thanks - I'll use that system from now on. But please could you leave your temporary fix for Poland states in place for now - I've made rather a lot of articles based on my former system, and it will take some time for my bot to change them all... One more question: is it possible to have more than 16 part.. fields? Many thanks for all your work:)) Kotniski 19:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it's just we need some sort of categorization for pages using Geoboxes, as of now the template creates a Category: Geobox TYPE, COUNTRY[, STATE if available]. Any suggestions on better organization are welcome. – Caroig (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Up to 42 should be supported now. Until recently there was an omission which caused only 16 to be displayed but that was fixed, seems to be working: Klatovy. – Caroig (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, that's great:) But there still seems to be something slightly wrong: on Gmina Góra there are 35 parts, but nos. 30 and 31 seem to be displayed twice? Oh and another question about the new Geobox... categories - at the moment they appear as red links - will they be created automatically or should we click on them to create them (and if so, where should they go)? --Kotniski 14:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geobox Bridge

Hi Caroig, just so you know, I am using Geobox Bridge at Cogan House Covered Bridge. Seems fine, but I am not sure how to turn off the category. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine, fine, fine. It's a feature that was requested by more users, after going thru a few options I decided to use the standard Wikipedia tool for organizing a topic. You can click on that category and place {{Geobox category|bridges in Pennsylvania}} it creates a standardized heading as in Category:Geobox Settlement, Slovakia. The Category feature of the Wikipedia software allows futher hierarchical oragnization. The Geoboxes are not only a template but a quasi-database system of describing geographic data that can be easily parsed by any tool for any purpose. If you still don't want the category to be created you can switch it off by adding geobox_category_off = 1.

A I would remove the repetitive Covered Bridge text from the box heading, see: User:Caroig/Sandbox/Bridge2. This is the way how the Geoboxes are intended to be used. They are not the article itself, which can contain a descriptive text of any format, but a database-like organized summary of geographical data about the subject. – Caroig (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Hello. May I have a suggestion? I noticed categories like "Geobox Settlement, Slovakia" etc. show up in the articles which use the geobox. I don't recall exact Wikipedia policies right now but I think these categories shouldn't show up in the article namespace. Could this be fixed? - Darwinek 09:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked the Wiki rules before adding this feature. It didn't seem to break any. Given the maintenace categories such as Articles needing this or that appear at so many articles (and there are usually more of them) I don't think there's a problem having a category indicating the article contains geodata in a machine-parseable format. Some users like this feature a lot others don't … it seems it's a matter of personal taste. However, it's not a major feature so should it indeed break some rules or should majority of users object to it, it can be removed. – Caroig (talk)

It just goes against common sense and general community preference. I don't know any infobox or other template having such a category in the article namespace, and we have plenty of various infoboxes here. - Darwinek 13:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly such categories like Category:Geobox City, Poland should be removed. I am sure there is something in WP:MOS/WP:CAT that would show they are bad style (technical cats that should be seen in encyclopedic content).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This feature is definitely not a must for the Geobox template. It was added after some requests (no better solution was suggested) and just some like it some don't. I had read carefully WP:CAT before I set this functionality up and didn't find anything that would the Ctegory can't be used this way. You say you're sure there's something in WP:CAT. Do you mean the line saying: Categories relating to the Wikipedia namespace should be added only to the talk page of articles. For example, tags suggesting the article needs work would be placed on the talk page as they are relevant to editors and not an aid to browsing in the way ordinary categories are.?

Then almost every wiki page is breaking this rule, take e.g. Prague. There are four (sic!) maintenance categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since September 2007 | Articles with unsourced statements since March 2007 | Articles needing additional references from August 2006 and no one seems to object to this even when it is obviously breaking the rule I quoted. Not talking about this breaking other rules from WP:CAT, e.g. the first category is superior to the second one and therefore it should be there at all. One category is placed here by the template (and other maintenance tags often placed at the very top of many articles do the same) that displays the This article needs additional citations for verification text, where the other come from I do not know. I doubt anyone can actually find any use to a category Articles with unsourced statements since March 2007. Yet it is diplayed at a major article, in the main namespace. And Prague is not an exception.

The auto-category doesn't primarily serve to trace the usage of the Geobox template but rather denotes articles in a given area which are described using easily parseable geodata (any outer parser, such as Google, can easily make use of them).

It is really not a major feature of the Geoboxes. Nonetheless, this functionality adds some value that users find useful while using a standard Wikipedia tool, the Category. Given what the Category is used for (often multiple temporary technical/maintanance categories, that often hang with the article for quite some time, of low informative value and probably no value for editors at all) I do not think we're breaking any rule/guideline here. – Caroig (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geoboxer Slovakia

I do not know what happened, but I have been unable to use Geoboxer.sk today. Every time I tried it, it returned this error: Parse error: parse error, unexpected ',' in S:\wikipedia\data_slovak.inc.php on line 62. I doubt it is a coincidence because I have tries to add a geobox to 12 different pages. Could you look at it please? Tankred 17:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, fixed. Sorry for that, I was adding some data and … – Caroig (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geobox for Townships

I can't remember, but someone told me once that the old geobox had a township template. So does the Geobox 2 have one for townships by chance? And if so, is there any way a bot could change out all of ours. I would hate to go through over 1,000 township articles manually. Thanks for any help in this.--Kranar drogin 05:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe one for precincts too, that is how a lot of the ones in southern Illinois are set up. I really like this category that the geobox now puts down at the bottom of the page showing you what has had the geobox added.--Kranar drogin 03:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There never existed any Geobox Township template. You could call the old Geobox Settlement using Geobox Township (as well as Geobox City, Geobox Town and several other) but these were only redirects to the Geobox Settlement template. The new version has just Geobox|Settlement and the appropriate settlement type should be put in the category field, this was the original idea even for version 1. If you run the Geoboxer tool it automaticly applies these changes, however, the tool has to be invoked manually. The conversion can be done using the AWB as well. I'm going to upgrade all Geobox 1 templates to Geobox 2 this way.

As of precincts or any other settlement/subdivision type can be entered the same way, i.e. calling the template as Geobox|Settlement and putting the actual type to the category field. The auto category will not distinguish between the various settlement types though, given the different nature of the field that follows the Geobox word (after the pipe), which is always a plain word that doesn't link to anyhing, and the category field, which can contain a wikilink. – Caroig (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, see I thought that the township template I used here was a template Jasper Township, Wayne County, Illinois. I musta mistaken it for something else.--Kranar drogin 01:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polish village Geobox

I've written out what I think Geoboxes for Polish villages should look like, following our discussion. You can find my sample on this page; perhaps we can discuss it on the corresponding discussion page (where I have already placed a short remark).

As far as the Geoboxes for municipalities (gminas) are concerned, I haven't prepared a new sample yet, as they are affected by the naming issue I raised on Template talk:Geobox.

Incidentally, I've just noticed I'm not seeing the minutes symbol displayed in the coordinates; any idea why this is? --Kotniski 15:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I've now made one for a gmina as well (here), based on your suggested structure. I still don't think the header is displayed as well as it could be though. It looks too much as if 'Gmina/Commune' is at most an optional part of the name (like the 'City' in New York City), when it's actually more like the 'City' in Oklahoma City. This is basically the same point that I'm making at Template talk:Geobox#Headers.

Another question: is there a supported way to turn off linking (e.g. if a region has a part which doesn't yet have its own article but shares the name of an existing article)? I managed to do it by prefixing [[a| ]] to the name, but I presume this is not recommended. --Kotniski 17:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply to the Header issue on the appropriate page. As of turning off th linking, I'm afraid this is not possible. The best solution is to create a wikilink that would point to the name of the future article (it will get displayed in color of course), or if you turn on the section folding (using part_fold = 1) you can add &ampnbsp; after the part name which will print an invisible space after the location name (you can add it even without the part_fold switch, but then you get a space between the name and the comma that follows.

Missing minute symbol in coordinates? Could you point me to a page where this occurs? Here's everything fine. The coordinates display is handled by general Wikipedia template which is not part of the Geobox system so there might be some issue with that. – Caroig (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. On closer inspection I see the minutes symbol is there, but the coordinates are so bunched up it is almost invisible. Might just be my browser (though I don't remember noticing it before).

I'm afraid this is something I can't really do anything about. – Caroig (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I was wondering whether to convert Infoboxes in the already existing Poland articles (these mostly concern larger towns, regions and districts) to Geoboxes too. I raised this topic on this Poland-related talk page - you might be interested in contributing to the discussion (e.g. by explaining the Geobox project better than I can). --Kotniski 20:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I do want to tell users which template to use for their country/region I think it should be up to the editors working on the project to decide which template suits their needs best. To offer something more than the existing Infobox Settlement the geoboxes still miss a good map that could be used for automated locator dot display. One can be easily copied from the one that's used by the Infobox Settlement template, though I don't think the blank maps are particluarly useful to anyone not living in the country and it might be better to have something similar to what we have for Slovakia (e.g. Turčianske Teplice) or the Czech Republic (e.g. Jičín. I've created those from resources which are in PD so similar maps can be created for any country/region in the world. – Caroig (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So what actually needs to be done? Is it enough to supply a map in the form of an image, with e.g. the coordinate data for the corners of the map? Or is anything else required? I don't think it would be a problem to find such a PD map for Poland and for e.g. each voivodeship. --Kotniski 09:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just suggestion, I guess users/editors might see the lack of any map as the major disadvantage of the Geobox. Setting up one is fairly easy, you just need the actual map and an appropriate "Template:Geobox locator XXX" template (see Category:Geobox locator), which contains just five fields: the coordinates (in decimal numbers) of the top left and bottom right corner of the map and the height/width ration. SIf you craete a locator for a particular map as "Template:Geobox locator Poland" you would put the map image name into the map field and the locator as map_locator = Poland, the latter serves also as a switch that turns on the locator dot display. – Caroig (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geobox for racetracks

I was just wondering real quick, should I just use a generic geobox for something like Washington Park Race Track since they want a map so badly, or could one for racetracks be created? If we create a new one, I would have to find what exactly we would need on it, and make it to encompass all racetracks I guess (since there is literally thousands). Let me know one way or other when you have the chance. Thanks!--Kranar drogin 23:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually there's just one Geobox template (as of the Geobox 2). The subtypes, which are determined by the first word after the first pipe, only set the appropropriate Geobox color and affect the auto category link. The Building, Bridge and Monument subtypes also change the default units which are normally kilometers/miles etc., but the three subtypes have meters/feet. All the fields from your sample Racetrek Infobox easily fit into existing Geobox fields so no change in the code is probably need.

You might want to start from the blank Geobox|Monument template and fill in manually the data from the Racetrek Infobox. I've looked at the example and it seems the fields are quite orderly; if you provide me a description how the Infobox fields should be mapped into Geobox fields (some will probably need to be split up, reformatted) I'll be able to set up the Geoboxer tool to do that automatically (+ add the maps). There's, however, a sort of waitlist for conversions for the Geoboxer tool, so I might not be able to include the conversion so soon. – Caroig (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think a color code is what the user who requested me to find a box with a map was looking for. I can wait if you can, no problem. I will try out the Monument one for now, see what I can come up with off of that. I will figure out the fields and get back with you. Thanks!--Kranar drogin 01:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have tried to do as you requested here User:Kranar drogin/Geobox race track. Some of the fields I wasn't sure about, but I listed on the page the examples of the tracks I was looking at. Any input?--Kranar drogin 19:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There are major problems with changing this template. This template affects all motorsport circuits in the world. The template was created from several different templates from the various motorsport WikiProjects. It was discussed at WikiProject Motorsport since that WikiProject oversees all forms of motorsport. I have started a thread by copying User:Kranar drogin's message at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Motorsport#Geobox_for_Race_Tracks. Royalbroil 04:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geoboxer SK

Hi. The Geoboxer.sk returns this error code:

Warning: convert_sk_obec::require_once(data_slovak.inc.php) [function.convert-sk-obec-require-once]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /data0/p/a/paloch.net/sub/wikipedia/Geobox.inc.php on line 488

Fatal error: convert_sk_obec::require_once() [function.require]: Failed opening required 'data_slovak.inc.php' (include_path='.:/usr/php5/lib/php') in /data0/p/a/paloch.net/sub/wikipedia/Geobox.inc.php on line 488

I guess you must have played with the code recently. Can you fix it please? Thanks. Tankred 04:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Oh no. Should be OK now. Actually I haven't been playing with the code but uploaded the code to an outer server (the current code runs from my home computer). I forgot to upload all necessary files. I did that to address just this, to have an older but fully working version of the code on one place and the development version on another one. But there are some other issues on the outer server anyway, so until I resolve these the code's running from my home computer again. Sorry for that. – Caroig (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As an additional value the Geoboxer can now extract area, elevation and established data from the article body if these are in entered in a standard way. – Caroig (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. It now works well and additional fields save much time. Btw, you cannot upload the code to Wikipedia's server? It is a very useful tool and should be recognized as such. Tankred 17:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It might not always work, the script won't find the data if it is entered in an nonstandard way. I was just adding Geoboxes to several villages and discovered the Slovak Infobox often missed these pieces of information. Adding such conversion is very easy, one just has to realize the data is there. If there's something more that can be extracted from either the Slovak Infobox or the article stub, let me know.

I haven't thought of that, it's a great idea, other php savvy users could add support for their conversions then. Thanks for the tip, I'll look into it. – Caroig (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And I'll be more careful about updates, I now have two folders with the convcersion scripts, one which in the wild an one under development. – Caroig (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geobox BS

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For quality work and putting up with the process hounds and rule barons on Wikipedia. People on power trips suck. Illegitimi non carborundum. IvoShandor 01:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that complete anarchy is not desirable but I don't like the tendency to enforce guidelines (I don't think there are many real rules here) at every cost. If something's useful I see no problem there, especially on such a marginal topic as categories, which are just an aid for editors. – Caroig (talk)

[edit] Whitespace

Zdar. Do you know why Geobox creates whitespace e.g. in Děčín article? This article is formatted correctly, text should show to the left by the Geobox, just as usual. If I recall it right, it appeared correctly some time ago. I have had the same problem when inserting Geobox to Nikolsburg article. - Darwinek 20:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Weird. Seems to appear only in IE (both 6 and 7); Opera, Firefox and Safari get it right. I would suspect there have recently been some changes applied to the various fixes the wiki software sends to IE to fix its numerous rendering problems, either in the CSS or the Javascript. I've checked the html that displays the the geobox (which is generated by the wiki software) and it's fully valid. The whitespace disappears if you remove the coat-of-arms image. – Caroig (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: it also disappears if there are no coordinates in the box, these are generated by an idependent code of the {{coord}} template. There might have been some changes applied there. – Caroig (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, strange. I've tried the same classic formatting in article which use Infobox Settlement which also uses Coord template in the box and it formats correctly. It is strange. - Darwinek 21:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's one of the basic problems of IE, you combine two html tags and get unexpected results. I've switched two parts of code in the Geobox template so they get displayed in reversed order and voila, the problem is gone. Just look into source of your page how many fixes the Wiki software sends to correct IE behavior. Fixing any page to diplay correctly in IE is a nightmare of any webpage creator. – Caroig (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. That's probably one of the reasons why people hate Microsoft software :). Btw do you study VUT or ČVUT ? - Darwinek 22:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not a student. It's just I sometimes create webpages. – Caroig (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geoboxer tool

Ok, don't want to highjack your other chat, so I will bring it here. I basically was converting a lot I had changed over, and next on the list would be the settlements listed on Template:Lee County, Illinois. You can see what I have converted so far with Template:Carroll County, Illinois to give you an idea of what is being moved around. Not really sure what all to list out, and this Geoboxer tool is something new to me. I will have to read about it.--Kranar drogin 02:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, is there a way to automatically add geoboxes to all the articles? Will I have to employ the use of a bot? One example would be Fulton, Illinois. Cities, Villages, and unincorporated communities are all set up just a little bit different, so I could supply categories that list all of them that need a geobox? Let me know.--Kranar drogin 02:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I will have to convert all the townships such as [Albany_Township, Whiteside_County, Illinois]] into the geobox2. There are a lot, but at the time I was using Infobox, and there are a few Geobox1 used in there also. Sorry I keep bringing this stuff up, but I would like the Illinois Project to fully embrace the Geobox as a whole. There are just a lot of articles.--Kranar drogin 02:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If I undesrtand correctly, you want to put a Geobox to every settlement of Illinois. As of now some settlements use {{Infobox Township}}, some use {{Geobox Township}} (which is just a redirect to {{Geobox Settlement}}) and some do not have any "box" at all. I think the Geoboxer can help in all three situtions.

First, the Geoboxer is not a bot. It is just user script which has to be invoked manually. When you are on a page, you click on a an extra tab and the script processes the data in the page. It just fills the edit box for you. Since the data in the source page isn't always entered in the same way, the script sometimes fails to fetch some fields or processes them in the wrong format.

The Geoboxer can always perform three actions:

• First, it parses the data in the pages and reformats it into appropriate Geobox 2 fields. As of now, it can upgrade all Geoboxes in the version 1. Support for conversion from Infoboxes can be added. If the data in the other Infobox is formated in the same way in all of them, it's very easy to set this up, you just tell the Geoboxer what the corresponding Infobox - Geobox fields are. Usually, some fields need their format to be changed somehow, at the same time additional fields can be added. The script can also look-up for some additional data in the article (provided they are always at the same place or the same format, e.g. if there's a line: "The population was XXX at the YYY census." it is easy to extract both the XXX and YYY values and assign them to the appropriate Geobox fields). And it can even fetch data form other pages (both Wikipedia or any outer, currently the Geoboxer can fetch any missing data for a Czech or Slovak settlement from the article on the same location on the Czech or Slovak wiki, because the data there is usually complete and more up-to-date).
• Second, it can add some data or change (standardize) the existing data for any Geobox of given parameters (e.g. do some actions if the state is Illinois). This runs independently on the first action, whether it only upgraded the Geobox from version 1, or converted it from another Infobox or even fetched from another source). This is best implemented for Slovakia. If you run the Geobxer on any Slovak page with a Geobox (city, river, mountain, castle …) it will always make sure there is a locator map of Slovakia and a second locator map of the region the location lies in. Also, when the Slovak Infobox doesn't conatin coordinates but the {{coord}} template can be found somewhere in the text, the coordinates can be extracted form it. And there are many other Slovakia-related actions defined. If the Geoboxer is run on a page which already has a Geobox 2, the first step is skipped. This is useful when the users decide to add some additional data or format existing data in a new way.
• Third, it outputs the data in a "nice" and recommended format (thhe whitespaced one). You can the check the output, apply some maula changes if needed and save the page.

So what can be done for Settlements in Illinois if they contain:

• Geobox 1 - not much is needed as the upgrade Geoboxer 1 > Geoboxer was why the Geoboxer was first created. If you need a faster way how to convert all Illinois Geoboxes from version 1 to version 2, you can do that also by AWB by simply replacing the template call {{Geobox Township with {{Geobox | Settlement provided the category = Township field is always declared (if not, the replace text should go {{Geobox | Settlement | category = Township. However, using AWB you don't get the advantage of further Illionois-related standardization.
• Infobox Township - I've set up appropriate conversion scheme for this template, check and report problems or suggest improvements.
• no "box" - this would need to be set, if you send me a description in which sentences the data is hidden (or provide any outer database) I can add support for this as well.
• Infobox U.S. County - though you probably didn't request this, the Geoboxer was set up to convert this infobox to its Geobox counterpart. It will work on any U.S. State using this template.

I also set up a few actions for Illinois and Illinois settlements. Such as turning on the country and state flag display. The conversion ignores or percentage or population density and assigns the value auto to the appropriate fields, so if anyone changes the population any time in future, the diplayed figure for population density will always be calculated automaticaly. The conversion also put the imperial values first. The words such as County or Township don't get displayed twice in the box header, the first line diplays just the proper name and the second displays the category (Township, County etc.). It's the recommended format so that the proper name and the "category" word are set appart (this is just beacuase if the Geobox design, to logicaly split the data so that they can be easily processd by any parser but it is also usuful for readers who are not familiar withy less common "categories" such as Township or Parish).

To use the Geoboxer, add the following snippet to your monobook.js page, save and refresh your browser's chache (the page say how to do that for every browser).

 //add Geoboxer link 
 addOnloadHook(function(){
   var editTab = document.getElementById("ca-edit");
   if (!editTab) return;
   addPortletLink("p-cactions", 'http://wikipedia.paloch.net/Geobox2.php?page='+location.href,
   "geoboxer", "ca-geobox", "Geoboxer","", editTab.nextSibling);
 });

I haven't converted any page for Illinois using the tool so far. That's up to you. If you prefer the data to be formatted in a different way than what I'm suggesting I'll make appropriate changes to the code. How the data is entered is up to you, not me and defintely not any "rule barons" who just pester others with ridiculus allegations. – Caroig (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dot placement on maps (again)

Hi. I have bad feeling that the Bratislava Region and possibly Trnava Region maps have some incorrect calibration. For example I tried to use Bratislava Region map in Senec, Slovakia article, but the preview showed that its location is near the border with Pezinok District, but in fact it is more to the south (like shown in the Senec District article). This is also true for others (Pezinok). As I don't know how the calibration works exactly (more precisely I don't know how the ratio field works - others set the map borders I think), could you look into it? Thanks MarkBA ^t/c/@ 21:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I always checked if the calibration was correct on at least one settlement, but I failed to do so for the Bratislava Region. Seems either the top or bottom parameter is wrong (as you say, these are just coordinates of the top left and bottom right corners of the map). I'm about to go bed now, I'll check it tomorrow. The ratio is just map height / map width. – Caroig (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poland - update

My plan to use Geoboxes for articles on Poland ran up against strong opposition, so I'm obliged to use Infobox Settlement instead. I hope you won't mind if I steal a few ideas from Geobox to incorporate into that Infobox. Hopefully at some time in the future the two will become merged in some fashion (as various people have suggested during discussions on the topic).--Kotniski 14:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up about Illinois

Just wanted to let you know Caroig, that the Illinois Project has employed a bot to assist us in putting the Geobox in our many many cities and villages. You can see our discussion for set up HERE if you want. We are going to try it out on 50 first, and then go from there if it works out. Thanks for this wonderful template, wish we could have kept that auto category.--Kranar drogin 02:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey Caroig, wanted to let you know there might be a problem with the map that you created. Here is the discussion [2] if you get a chance. Thanks!--Kranar drogin (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-creation of deleted content

Hi Caroig, I'm disappointed to see that you have re-crated (albeit under slightly changed names) the geobox categories deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 25#Geobox. I am in the process of speedy deleting them.

I'm sorry that I didn't get a chance to reply to your message on my talk page about the closure of the debate, but that's no reason to just re-create the categories. Deletion review exists if you want to challenge a CfD closure, but it's not appropriate to just re-create categories because you dislike the CfD outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment on my talk page: see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Geobox_categories_.283.29. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Caroig, I suggest not even dealing with BrownHairedGirl anymore. She just deletes, and moves on. I asked for clarrification here, never got it and never expect to get it now (even though you would think that is something an ADMIN should do). Pity to see you take a break over this, some people around here though get such big egos that they feel they can do what they want if they don't like something.--Kranar drogin 03:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Caroig, I hope you will not get discouraged by this disagreement over categories. Wikipedia is a collective endeavor and we are not always able to convince other people. But you have done a lot of amazing work here and all your efforts are appreciated by many people (just look at all your barnstars!), including thousands of readers. As a veteran of several unfortunate clashes over application of Wikipedia's policies, I would suggest you just move on. The issue at stake is infinitely less important than what you have already done and what you can do in the future. I wish you all the best and look forward to your great new contributions. Tankred 03:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not leaving Wikipedia and I'm not broken (not yet), thanks both for your words. I just want this case to be made cleared because this bahavior discourages far too many editors (I've seen a couple of I'm leaving Wikipedia becasue of bureacracy etc. massages on many users' pages, even of very experienced and long-time editors). – Caroig (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As stated before, deletion review is available if you want it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion review requested

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 13#Geobox_categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your fair post, I'll add my comments especially abou what had happened before the categories were suggested for deletion which is missing here as it has to do with my need for arbitration. – Caroig (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that the DRV was closed as all deletions endorsed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] |}

Thanks for fixing it. It is funny, I corrected the problem, but I forgot to purge the page cache, so I thought I actually did not fix anything. Such a shame:-) Tankred 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you tracked and fixed it first ;-) – Caroig (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Feel free to report me anywhere you want. It is funny that you are the only contributor to geobox template, you react very crossly to all users who implement WP policies on your contributions and you call me a liar when I accuse you of WP:OWN. Your behaviour indeed violates WP:OWN, you are the person who called geobox "my baby" several months ago, I think. Your recent accusations of my person also smells with personal attack or bad faith at least. I am the Administrator, so I am used to such sneaky attacks and allegations. You still claim that I ignored all discussion and that I presented "false statements". Well, I just written what other users, more competent in this area, said. Reason why I haven't participated in the discussion during WP:CFD is that I have brought your categories to CFD just as a technocrat (or bureaucrat) and let other users say what they think. It is not my fault you've got such a bleak feedback. My personal opinion about this case is not relevant as I really acted in this case just as a technocrat. Therefore I strongly resent tone of your communication with me. P.S. Wikipedia is not just about consensus, it is also about the rule and order. -- Darwinek 23:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] request

I wonder if you could explain here in a non tech way just what the disputed categories did, so I can tell why there were objections to it.DGG (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will provide a detailed explanation of what the categories did, I hope I get to it today, if not, please bear with me, I've got a lot of normal work to do. Thanks for your interest. – Caroig (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Denver, Colorado/sandbox

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Denver, Colorado/sandbox, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Denver, Colorado/sandbox is a test page.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Denver, Colorado/sandbox, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot 02:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geoboxes

Hi Caroig, I hope this finds you well. I have found a little bug in geoboxes: the "area_round" field does not override the "area" field. If the "area" includes three digits after the decimal point and you set "area_round" to two digits, a geobox would still display three digits. I would like also to ask you a less technical question. I have been adding geoboxes to villages in Slovakia on a large scale, but already two users have asked why there are two maps in each geobox.[3][4] As I was born in Slovakia, I can understand both maps in a geobox easily, but the second map (and the rationale for it) appears to be less comprehensible for random readers. I wonder if we can explain what exactly the second map is about in its caption. We can perhaps add the word "detailed" or something like that. Well, I do not really have many ideas how to deal with this situation. Do you have any thoughts on it? Tankred (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I'm still alive, I've been just having a bit of rest from Wikipedia. Could you please point me to a page where you've encountered the bug with rounding? I don't seem to be able to reprocuce it. The only explanation I can think of now is the area_round field might be twice in the box, the second always overriding the first one.

As of the maps I didn't give it much thought when setting up the Geoboxer so whatever you think a better caption would be I'll update the tool accordingly. When I think about it now, it can indeed be confusing, so just some ideas: "Location of XXX in the Prešov Region of Slovakia", I might also create Slovakia outline maps that would somehow emphasize the region the location lies in (it might have red border) or the Slovakia map might show (in red?) the bounding box of the more detailed region map. The second user seems to be objecting to the second map as such. Which is difficult to argue with because it is as valid an opinion that it is useful. – Caroig (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Caroig. I am happy you are doing well. You can find an example of the problem with area_round at Závadka nad Hronom or Suchá Hora. By the way, I have tried an alternative caption of the second map at Banska Bystrica, but I do not know if it is any better. Giving it second thought, perhaps we should just ignore this issue until there are more reported problems with the geobox maps. Two comments can be totally random. Tankred (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind my two cents on the "area_round" question. I think the issue is you are entering a number with 3 digits after the decimal "area = x.xxx" and entering "area_round = 2". "area_round" controls the number of digits after the decimal point in the calculated value and does not effect the number of decimals shown in the manually entered "area". Hope that answer what I think you're asking. VerruckteDan (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Gee, I did not know area_round influences only automatically calculated values. Thanks a lot, your comment perfectly explains my puzzle. So, if I am not wrong, the only way is to manually round the number if one wants to have only two digits after the decimal. Tankred (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have misunderstood the question. Sorry. And thanks to (User talk:VerruckteDan for clarifying this. If you think it might be useful to have the _round fields affect the entered values as well as those calculated ones it wouldn't be that difficult to implement. – Caroig (talk) 11:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad I could help. I would be against having "_round" affect the entered values, i think it would be clearer to editors if the manually entered number appeared as typed on in the Geobox. VerruckteDan (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Originally, the _round fields were introduced just to enable the auto-conversion to display the same number of significant digits as entered in the non-calculated field. My first thought goes to: "is this doable"? When I think about it now, it seems redundant. But it's easily doable anyway. Let me now if you think it would be useful. – Caroig (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you back Caroig. Butting in here - I think I know the confusion on the second map. I think it would be clearer if the map showing the smaller region was first, and the map of all of Slovakia with the specific region highlighted came second. In the United States Geoboxes we show the smaller state map first, then the US map with the state highlighted. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The more opinions, the better, thanks for your 2c. Seems we have to ideas here:

• Switch the map order. Region map first, country second.
• Highlight the region in the country map.

I've moved the topic to Maps in Geoboxes beacuse it concerns all Slovak users. Anyway, any further comments are welcomed as I'm planning to create similar maps for the Czech Republic too, should this be a recommendation for the use of Geoboxes? – Caroig (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Image:UNESCO World Heritage Site - small logo.svg is marked as a logo used under fair use. If you use any fair use image in a template like {{geobox}}, you would have to have a fair use rationale for every page using the template. Also, it's generally understood that fair use images should only appear in the article space; the image currently appears in Template talk:Geobox/test. If you really want to use this logo, and you can't find a "free" version, then the safe solution is generally to put it in the template call in each article, like {{geobox | title=[[Image:logo.svg]] This place | otherstuff=otherdata }}. Still, maintaining the list of articles (for the fair use rationale) is usually too much fuss; a text note avoids this problem and allows for a link to WHS. Gimmetrow 16:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox czech village

I thought (and I could be wrong) that czech settlements standardized on Geobox. If so, you should take these few pages using this template and they should be switched over to geobox. Then that infobox should be listed at WP:TfD. —MJCdetroit (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am working on subsequent replacing Infobox/other box/no box on every Czech settlement with Geobox. Thank you for the suggestion, I didn't notice this template. I will replace it on two remaining villages soon. --mikeshk (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. --mikeshk (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:UNESCO World Heritage Site - small logo.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:UNESCO World Heritage Site - small logo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas

I don't know if I'll cheer you up after recent events, but I wish you Merry Christmas and a happy and productive New Year (well, better late than never). Let's hope we will see better contributions next year. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 14:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've deactivated my address here, but I'm lazy to put it off my sig, though I can reactivate it again for short time, so you may be able to send. Try sending it after you'll read this message. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 13:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Mountain Range

A tag has been placed on Template:Mountain Range requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox/River

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox/River requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox/history

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox/history requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox/list

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox/list requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox22 coor

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox22 coor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox22 list flag

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox22 list flag requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox22 list line

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox22 list line requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox22 list long

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox22 list long requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox2 list fold flag

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox2 list fold flag requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox2 list line

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox2 list line requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox Building

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox Building requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox Mountain/Doc

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox Mountain/Doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox Town/Doc

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox Town/Doc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox category

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox category requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox category/River

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox category/River requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox category/XRiver/Slovakia

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox category/XRiver/Slovakia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox category/settlement

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox category/settlement requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox category/settlement/Illinois

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox category/settlement/Illinois requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox category/settlement/Slovakia

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox category/settlement/Slovakia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox category default

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox category default requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox link sandbox

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox link sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox location UK2

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox location UK2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:Geobox message/category

A tag has been placed on Template:Geobox message/category requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It has been a long time...

Hey Caroig, it seems you are no longer around, which is a great loss for both Wikipedia and all editors interested in Slovakia. I really hope you will return. If I am mistaken and you do check your talk page, there is an ongoing discussion about de-linking the names of mayors in the Geobox template at Template talk:Geobox. I think it is a good idea to de-link them, but I do not know hot to do it. I wonder if you could help us with this little problem. Tankred (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

After long time, I'm adding here my post. I hope you will at least see us again. I also have a little problem, and that the "part_fold" field doesn't work properly; it has some expansion error. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 13:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geobox County

Hey guy, after a long hiatus myself, I have decided to do a few things as of late. I was wondering if you ever created a geobox for counties? I could prolly figure it out through a blank one, but a specific geobox would be best. If you have totally cut ties with the Wiki, I understand. I hope to hear from you, and hope all has been well.--Kranar drogin (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)