Template talk:Geolinks-US-streetscale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Geolinks-US-streetscale is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
This template does not have a documentation subpage. If the template page contains categories, interwiki links or usage notes, move these to Template:Geolinks-US-streetscale/doc. If the template does not require documentation, add |doc=no to this template ({{permprot}}).

Archives

Archive 1

About archives • Edit this box

Note: This talk page is for ALL THREE templates:

Their sibling variants, such as Template:Geolinks-US-streetscale-no-title have the same information which must be kept in sync manually.

[edit] conflict with CoorHeader ?

I don't have any problems, but I have been told that on pages where there is both {{CoorHeader}} and {{Geolinks-US-buildingscale}} there can be problems (e.g. RMS Queen Mary. If that is the case, someone should probably run a bot to remove the CoorHeader template on any pages with the a geolinks template. ^Blank ^Verse 00:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

For links to some screen captures of examples of the problem, please see: User talk:Solarapex#RMS Queen Mary ^Blank ^Verse 09:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can we add VirtualGlobetrotting.com links?

VirtualGlobetrotting.com supports searching by lat,lon: http://virtualglobetrotting.com/ll/(lat),(lon). Disclaimer: I'm the owner. I've also made a request under Template:Geolinks-US-cityscale. Nicjansma 07:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Default scale

Is there a way to change the default scale (zoom level)? TonyTheTiger 17:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's done by choice of template -- perhaps see number 2 here... --- User:scbomber (no worries -- only bombs in netrek 05:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of MapQuest

In response to the above comment "Does this Template unfairly favor the big 3 map sites?", it seems that no would be the answer, since the template only unfairly favors the second, third and fourth largest mapping sites.

As of March 2007 for the US comScore numbers lists MapQuest as #1:

MapQuest 49 mil unique visitors
Yahoo! 29
Google 24
Live.com 5.8

I would suggest that MapQuest be added to this template as it is the online leader and popular choice by Internet users for Maps & Directions.

Below are example URLs for the template for Street Maps, Hybrid, and Aerial:

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?searchtype=address&formtype=latlong&latlongtype=decimal&latitude=40.3366089&longitude=-104.877616&dtype=s http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?searchtype=address&formtype=latlong&latlongtype=decimal&latitude=40.3366089&longitude=-104.877616&dtype=h http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?searchtype=address&formtype=latlong&latlongtype=decimal&latitude=40.3366089&longitude=-104.877616&dtype=a

SCJeff 13:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC) SCjeff

[edit] Please add WikiMapia

{{editprotected}} Please examine this template's siblings

and see that they have WikiMapia link and this does not. This temp should also have a WikiMapia link. Please add it and if you notice other discrepancies, please fix them as well.--SallyForth123 23:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That is good, but I noticed that the wording still differs between the templates. I know this is tedious, but we put a lot of effort to get those number right so if you could unify the wording between the templates (unless it is semantically significant because of the different scales), that would be great.--SallyForth123 00:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uniform protection

As long as we are at it, could we please make the protections uniform? All or nothing: I do not care. I note that City and Street are protected but Building is not.--SallyForth123 00:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. The templates are now all protected and they indicate that status. Also, I tweaked some of the language to be uniform, and I rearranged some bullets for conformity. Any other discrepancies you'll have to point out. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geolinks vs. Mapit prefix

Geolinks vs. Mapit prefixes must go! We have both the real templates

Template:Geolinks-US-buildingscale
Template:Geolinks-US-streetscale
Template:Geolinks-US-hoodscale - which I have redirected to street and will ignore for this discussion
Template:Geolinks-US-cityscale

and the templates with the Mapit prefixes:

Mapit-AUS-suburbscale - about 2000 refs left, but the Aussies are in love with this Mapit template redirect: they will not even allow the redirect to be deprecated without some kind of consensus that has not happened in over two years. The concept of Don't use the Mapit* templates anymore! does not register with them. The Australian advocates of the status quo were User:Orderinchaos, User:Maelgwn and User:JRG. Sigh, their loss.
Mapit-Canada-cityscale - rarely-used redirect
Mapit-US-buildingscale - rarely-used redirect
Mapit-US-streetscale - rarely-used redirect
Mapit-US-hoodscale - rarely-used redirect
Mapit-US-cityscale - There are 20,000 references to this recirect... Ugh.

Fixing the latter AUS Mapit reference is not much work, but there are thousands of US cities that use Mapit-US-buildingscale. I guess will have to mark them "redirects for deletion" and deal with the blowback.

While I am on the subject: I think it would have to document how these templates are encoded. I am looking at the Google WikiMapia call and there is a spnx, spny parameter that I am trying to figure out:

0.008592,0.005932 - building
0.15,0.25 - street
0.11,0.18 - city

I did a little experimenting and I think that the Google API just picks the bigger of the two numbers anyway. It is not like these two numbers being unequal is going to give you a distorted map back. Maybe the Google maps and WikiMapia always set the Aspect ratio to unity. I dunno. Huh. Our "street" values do not make sense to me. If you look at what you get with the first line of the Geolinks templates (i.e. the ones that go through http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/geo/geohack.php) and how we link to it, you will see that requests that go through it get scaling for the following keywords:

0.01,0.01 - landmark
0.03,0.03 - airport
0.1,0.1 - city

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Parameters for the full list.

These multiple calls to the template mess up the coords in the upper right-hand corner of this page, but that does not really matter. I will no-wiki them later when the work is done.

After thinking about it, I made the decision: Although I have scaled city and street to roughly conform to the template:coord city and airport, what people really want with building is to zoom to the limits of the services available. So I made the building template push the limits. If there are places where there is poor coverage and they cannot deal yet with maximum zoom, then they will just have to back off to the street level.

--SallyForth123 10:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To summarize

Zoom values
Service	landmark/building	airport/street/hood	city	Notes
	zoom values
WikiMapia	z=19	15	12	Like Google Maps, this provide no satellite image if you zoom too close in some areas.
Google Maps	z=19	spn=0.03,0.03	spn=0.10,0.10	A mix of z and spn.
Live Search Maps	lvl=19	15	12	This service now has many modes, including 3D with building outlines
Yahoo! Maps	mag=1	2	4	Yahoo labels Street and City level as such
MapQuest	zoom=13	10	7	This has both street and satellite
TopoZone	s=2.952	25	200	Linear zoom factor, not logarithmic
TerraServer-USA	s=10	12	13	These images are old, mostly black and white

I also decided to take the maximum CGI defaults and not even try to specify street vs. satellite style. The good services now have both and the user can easily switch. This does not match the scaling you get with http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/geo/geohack.php , but it is closer in that direction.

The Geolinks-US-buildingscale template is now zoomed much farther in. It is no longer useful for objects of more than a city block or two. In particular, Universities and the like should not use it to point to themselves as a whole. For an individual building, it should be fine.--SallyForth123 07:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Although some of the Google Maps links in these templates use spn= for the zoom level, that could be replaced with z=, using the same values as WikiMapia (based on Google Maps) or Live Search. -- Zyxw 11:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The following may be of interest, it shows all of the "type" values accepted by Geohack (and used in {{geolinks-start}}, {{coord}}, etc.) with the equivalent zoom levels for Google Maps. -- Zyxw 12:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Geohack 'type' value	Ratio	Google 'spn' value	Google 'z' value
country	1 : 10,000,000	spn=10,10	z=5
state	1 : 3,000,000	spn=3,3	z=7
adm1st	1 : 1,000,000	spn=1,1	z=8
adm2nd (default)	1 : 300,000	spn=0.3,0.3	z=10
city, mountain, isle	1 : 100,000	spn=0.1,0.1	z=11
airport	1 : 30,000	spn=0.03,0.03	z=13
landmark	1 : 10,000	spn=0.01,0.01	z=15
	1 : 3,000	spn=0.003,0.003	z=17
	1 : 1,000	spn=0.001,0.001	z=18

[edit] The "coordinates" span

While the Geolinks-* templates set the Wikipedia-defined "coordinates" HTML span, and the Geolinks-*-no-title templates display the same info as their siblings but without trying to set the span, there is another wrinkle: Some templates such as Template:Geobox Settlement and sibs (which are all just redirects to Settlement) also try to set the span. To make it ugly, they set the span with dms data rather than decimal-fraction degrees. We should document this and make it clear to the users so that they can sort this out as easily as possible when they encounter the problem.--SallyForth123 03:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Volume

Note that Template:Geolinks-US-buildingscale and Template:Geolinks-US-streetscale are used in only about 2000 article each. Template:Geolinks-US-cityscale is used in about 25,000 articles with another 20,000 still using Mapit-US-cityscale.--SallyForth123 22:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which coordinates system is better?

I was noticing that on Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates, they were recommending using the Template:Coord. I was tagging some stuff, but I didn't know which one between this Geolinks one and that one would be better to use. Anyone have a recommendation? (Cardsplayer4life 17:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC))

Depends on what you're tagging *for*. If you use this one, coord gets directly referenced anyway (see source code for Template:Geolinks-start which is called by this one). However having the map links in External links is desirable for some entities where you might want a tighter zoom on the location than geohack normally allows. Orderinchaos 14:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I had noticed that some people automatically scrape the data from wikipedia for use in Google Earth and other stuff. I was wondering; Do all coordinates get translated this way, or only certain ones? In other words, I don't want to be adding a bunch of geotags that may not be of use to as many people as they could otherwise. Also, I had a question about the geotagging of images; Does anyone do that? I tagged a few images with geotags, but didn't know if that was improper. (Cardsplayer4life 16:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

Google explain their use of Wikipedia data for Google Earth at http://earth.google.com/userguide/v4/geoweb_faq.html. Geotagging and geovisualisation of images is mostly done at commons:Commons:Geocoding. --Para 16:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Aaah, ok, so Google recommends using coord instead. I wonder if that means that the geolinks tag isn't recognized? I guess I could go back and retag all the ones I did with geolinks and make them coord, but that seems like a lot of work. Oh well, thank you for the response. (Cardsplayer4life 17:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC))

Google states that {{coord}} is preferred, but this template apparently has in the past been recognized by Google. The Cobble Hill Tunnel article uses this template; I used its link to view the location in Google Earth. When I turned on G-E's Geographic Web layer, the article's location appeared. So Google recognized the location sometime in the recent past. (SEWilco 15:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

I think this is because this template (and others like it) actually use coord. Orderinchaos 08:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proper minus signs

Observe this difference:

Longitude -97

Longitude −97

This template seems to cause the minus sign to appear as a stubby little hyphen. Admittedly many newspapers do that, since they're not really accustomed to doing mathematical stuff, but by typesetting conventions used in books and in Wikipedia mathematics articles, using the stubby little hyphen is incorrect. I'd have fixed it if when I clicked on "edit" I had seen how to do so. Can someone do that? Michael Hardy 01:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Further usage note: When subtracting, one writes

5 − 3

with a space on either side of the minus sign, but when writing about a negative number, one writes

−3

with no intervening space. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics). Michael Hardy 01:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This type of issue has been brought up in other contexts. Basically, it usually requires far more work to fix than it's worth. If you can find a solution to the issue that doesn't break the templates, I'd be happy to update the code. However, I'm really not involved in any of the Template:Coor templates, so I can't really help. You could try WP:VP/T or trying talking to Quarl (talk · contribs), who may or may not be able to help you. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate Coords

{{editprotected}} In Zoo articles like Henry Doorly Zoo, and other articles the coords are added in the infobox. You will notice that Henry Doorly Zoo article has two coords showing up because the Geolinks flag automaticly addeds one. Can you make a option that will turn off the coords flag in the Geolinks flag? BeckyAnne (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to write the code or have someone write the code before making an editprotected request. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Geolinks-US-cityscale

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Currently_used_templates for discussion of an update. -- User:Docu

Um, is it supposed to not show up in external links now? That's going to take a lot of cleanup if so--it's leaving empty "External links" headings, which isn't good. Katr67 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

~~{{editprotected}} Please undo the last change--the template is not rendering properly in hundreds of external links sections--pending discussion. Example: Abert Rim.~~ Katr67 17:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see the above discussion. -- User:Docu

I strongly object to this change. Please revert. hike395 02:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please describe what you want, so we know what you mean by "this", in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Currently_used_templates. (SEWilco 03:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

{{editprotected}} I would like an administator who is not involved in the Geographical Coordinates WikiProject to look at this request please. Please take a look at this deadlocked discussion and straw poll. I think {{Geolinks-US-cityscale}} should be reverted to the "visible" version until consensus is reached. Thanks. Katr67 05:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. The present situation leaves many, many articles, in effect, with content blanked, without explanation. This result is something that would be regarded as vandalism if it were done intentionally. That fact alone should be enough to revert until the project/discussion is completed. -Pete 19:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved Admin's comment: I was asked to consider the change requested above, but after spending about 45 minutes looking at the talk pages, & the template now & before, I have to confess that I can't figure out the rationale for changing this template, nor why it should be changed back. (Maybe I'm having a bad day here.) It's clear that it is somehow connected to an effort to standardize geolink templates, but what that connection is escapes me -- whether it being deprecated or improved for certain situations. All I'm sure about is that with my preferred skin (Classic), the current version breaks: at the top of the screen I see "Coordinates", a globe icon that links to a pop-up map, & the message: "error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"_W_type:city_region:US {{{1}}}° N Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{"° W". If someone can verify this, then the current revision should be reverted or fixed. Otherwise, can someone explain the discussion to me -- or find someone smarter than me to resolve it? -- llywrch 20:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

EncMstr provided an excellent summary here. At least, I call it excellent because it helps me understand, generally, what's going on. I haven't followed the discussion in detail though, so if it misses anything, I wouldn't know. (I haven't seen the issue you mention -- is that on a specific page, or all over the place?) -Pete 20:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, The way the template renders here: Template:Geolinks-US-cityscale doesn't affect its working properly on article pages. I can't really nutshell the lead up to the change, I only became aware of it after I started to notice a lot of empty "External links" headings that contained the template but I think this is an accurate summary: WPGC has been working on improving/standardizing the use of templates. A proposed/permanent change was made to the template, which results in there no longer being map links in the external links section of articles. Some of us notice and ask about/object to the change. A rather confusing straw poll is set up. People weigh in. Things continue to stay the same. Now back to my opinion: I think the changes to the template were absolutely good faith, but it's unfortunate that those of us who use the template had no way of knowing the change was going to take place, and that the problem with the empty headers was not anticipated. The bottom line is that whatever happens, it should take the users of the encyclopedia and the editors who use geolinks as a tool when writing articles into account. Katr67 20:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I think it's better not to revert back and forth between different disputed versions. It is unfortunate the original change was made with perceived negative consequences, and if there is anything I can do to help (template coding, bot edits, etc), please contact me on my talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There aren't really "disputed versions" we are just asking for the original template to be restored until the final version is decided upon. It's unfortunate this is simply going to continue to drag on. It it time to file an RFC in the matter so we can get the larger community involved? Katr67 02:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The last edit was by Docu on September 9. If it was a simple error, I assume he would have reverted it by now. I do think that an RFC or a post to te village pump would be a good way to get more attention to the issue. Be sure to leave a short, clear summary of what the issues are.— Carl (CBM · talk) 02:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a simple error. The change was made on purpose and in good faith, but apparently only with input from the Geographic Coordinates WikiProject and without regard to the subsequent problem of empty section headers. Did you read the (admittedly lengthy) discussions I referenced above? (see also the post above and below that one) What I'm saying is that I thought this should have been reverted back to the version everyone was used to until we worked out (again, in the above referenced discussion and straw poll) what the new version should look like. Several folks have agreed with me, but obviously it's time to do an RFC and hopefully someone can sort out this mess. Thanks for looking into it. I guess this is my first experience with WP:WRONG. :) Katr67 04:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a significant problem, and I believe Katr has it just right. Here's the deal: the problem resulted from a very well-intentioned process, aiming to resolve problems with the Geolinks-US-cityscale template (and others addressing similar needs.) But the "solution" -- whether temporary or not -- affected literally tens of thousands of articles (don't know how to do an exact count, but I paged through about 25,000 in pages of 500.)

On each of those pages, there is an "External links" section. That section used to contain about 6 links to external sites with mapping information (Google Maps, etc.) In some cases, there are other external links, in others, not. But the point is, editors of…oh, let's just say 100,000…Wikipedia articles, presumably, used the Geolinks-US-cityscale template intentionally, because they thought those links added value to the article. But those links no longer exist -- see here for an example of an affected "External links" section.

With this decision, tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles were adversely affected, with seemingly no plan to address the change on each of those articles. Admittedly, I have not read through the finer details of the process, but if there's a solution on that scale that outweighs the negative effect, I am not aware of it.

To put it simply, it doesn't matter if you get a 51% or 100% consensus from 5, 10, or 100 editors who are techy enough and WP-savvy enough to take part in the discussion Katr referenced above. When their decisions -- however well-intentioned -- significantly affect tens of thousands of articles, there needs to be some moderating force to make sure the transition is smooth, and does not override numerous intentional editorial decisions (to include External Links) without somehow addressing that issue directly. -Pete 05:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please remember I am just an uninvolved admin who saw the editprotected tag. I looked at Bull Run, Oregon, and there is a link in the external links section. So the section is not empty. It seems to me there is a disagreement over how many links should be visible there, but the current version does create at least one link that might be useful for some readers. I think that an RFC or other community discussion on the right format of the links would be appropriate. But since the template is displaying something reasonable, I don't think it's appropriate to just revert back. Then the other side of the disagreement would start making the same request, to revert the template. So we'll have to live with the Wrong Version until the matter is resolved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)I don't have time to address your entire post, but um, in my browser, in Bull Run, Oregon, the only thing below the "External links" header is a stub tag. Am I missing something? Katr67 15:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, there is a geolinks tag in the external links section that used to render something visible in the External links section (and not just wiki code--there are lots of coordinates templates that get put at the bottom of pages that don't register code that is visible except *at the top of the page*, thus they don’t necessarily need an “External links” heading, because they are not visible as external links), but currently only renders coordinates links at the top of the page, which took many of us by surprise. If my settings are somehow showing this differently than yours, I apologize, but several other people have also mentioned the "empty header"--i.e. no visible external links--phenomenon, so even if not everyone is experiencing the problem, I still think it is significant. For an illustration of what I mean, compare the current Bull Run, Oregon, article with this temporary version I created, where I changed the template from cityscale to buildingscale: Talk:Bull Run, Oregon/Temp. For whatever reason, the buildingscale geolink template has not been updated yet. The cityscale geolinks template formerly rendered a series of links similar to the example. I hope my explanation is clearer. Thanks. Katr67 16:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In Bull Run, Oregon, in the external links section, I see: "Coordinates: link 45.43056° N 122.23056° W". The link opens a google map. Could you take a screenshot of what you see and post it online? That would help us figure out what's going on. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:BSSS.jpg Here you go. Katr67 17:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like differing results may be causing confusion in this discussion. Katr has the same results in Internet Explorer on a PC as I see in both Safari and Firefox on a Mac, illustrated below. (Maybe it has to do with what MediaWiki skin you're using?) Note that the "coordinates" link DOES show up in the upper-right corner, which is well and good, but not someplace the untrained reader would expect to find a collection of links. -Pete 17:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


on the left, the current view; on the right, (more or less) how it used to look

I see. I get the same effect with the monobook skin, but not with the simple skin. With the simple skin, the 'Coordinates' part stays in the external links section. This does seem like something that should be resolved. There is an announcement below, which I hope is progress. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)(FWIW, I get the same results as I posted above with a PC and Firefox) I'm glad we cleared up the confusion; I was beginning to think I was seeing things. Actually the announcement below has been there a while, but the discussion there is starting to progress again, so hopefully we can work this out soon. Feel free to weigh in now that you hopefully understand what is going on a little better. Thanks again. Katr67 20:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geolinks alteration

Alteration of Geolinks is under discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Proposals. Changes or deletion are likely soon. (SEWilco 19:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)) {{editprotected}}

After discussion [1] please change the following templates to the following (mostly deleting text/links which are redundant with the information in the coordinates page). There is a corresponding request for alteration on the Talk page of {{geolinks-start}}.

Template:Geolinks-US-buildingscale

{{Geolinks-start|{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}|type:landmark_region:US}}<noinclude>
{{pp-template|small=yes}}
[[Category:Geolinks templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</noinclude>

Template:Geolinks-US-streetscale

{{Geolinks-start|{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}|type:landmark_region:US}}<noinclude>
{{pp-template|small=yes}}
[[Category:Geolinks templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[vi:Tiêu bản:Geolinks-US-streetscale]]</noinclude>

Template:Geolinks-US-cityscale

{{Geolinks-start|{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}|type:city_region:US}}<noinclude>
{{pp-template|small=yes}}
[[Category:Coordinates templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Geolinks templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]
</noinclude>

[edit] Is the formatting for Geolinks-US-streetscale broken?

I know nothing about the history or the use of this template, but it looks like a typo to my inexperienced eye. For example, at University of Cincinnati, the code {{Geolinks-US-streetscale|39.132024|-84.515548}} gives

University of Cincinnati is at coordinates 39.132024, -84.515548Coordinates: 39.132024, -84.515548

Why are the numbers repeated? Why is the word "coordinates" repeated? And if the repetitions are intentional, shouldn't there at least be a space or some punctuation before "Coordinates"?

Or is there just something wrong with my browser? --ScottAlanHill (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The second set is called "title coordinates" and it's supposed to go to the top of the article with absolute CSS positioning. Have you disabled CSS in your browser, or are you using a skin that hasn't implemented coordinate positioning? It seems to be supported in all the skins except MySkin and Simple. With the the default MonoBook it looks like this, and has been configured at MediaWiki:Monobook.css at #coordinates. --Para (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this as well, using the Simple skin. Is that skin no longer actively maintained? There is no indication of this on the preferences page, and I couldn't find a discussion page about this skin. Mdz (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Title coordinates were implemented following the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/archive006#Coordinates at the top of the article and bugzilla:4719 almost two years ago. Looks like these less used skins were just left out for lack of interest. There has never been much activity at MediaWiki:Simple.css, not sure if that's a decision on the principle that a simple skin shouldn't have styling, or if there really is no one to maintain it. The Village pump is probably the place for finding that out. --Para (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Templates needing documentation pages