Open main menu

Wikipedia β

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 August 6

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log

August 6Edit

Template:Geographic locationEdit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).
The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Numerically, this is almost a complete split on !votes, and even then it was almost an even split of "it's useful" vs "it's not useful" (neither of which are particularly helpful); the majority of the keep camp were quick to point out the "good" usage, while the delete camp pointed out the "bad" usage.

Two main concerns brought up and heavily discussed (by both sides) were "accuracy" and "location".

  • Accuracy - some locations are not actually contiguous, while others are (see links to Kansas counties below). However, this is not necessarily a problem with the template itself (aside from the fact that you are boxed into eight specific compass directions)
  • Location - the template documentation itself says that it should be used as a "navbox" at the end of articles, but some in the delete camp have complained that it is routinely found in the middle of articles.

Unfortunately, unless the template is deleted outright there is no easy one-change fix to these issues. There is agreement on both sides that bringing extant usage "up to code" as it were is perfectly acceptable - i.e. move or remove in-article usage and fix the provided "neighbours" so that they actually make sense. Of course, this is a per-article fix, but at least it's something everyone can agree on. Improving the /doc to be clearer on its usage may be helpful as well.

As far as actual changes to the template go, one concern regarding collapsibility has been addressed. Other suggestions or concerns should be discussed further on the talk page.

If no amicable solution can be reached, or the ACCESS / ICONS issues cannot be resolved, there is NPASR, but no earlier than 2018. Primefac (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Useless and horrible.

  1. Is a navbox that serves no necessary navigation function, since all this information would (or should) already be in the article text, and for geographic locations we can and usually do include maps.
  2. Inspires abuse as a non-navbox inserted in mid-article. [1]
  3. There is no consensus to use this; it only appears on a tiny fraction of geographical articles, and editors frequently delete it when a "decorator" tries to add it.
  4. It's abusing tables for layout, an MOS:Accessibility problem.
  5. It's against MOS:ICONS, using icons as pure decoration. Even if they're removed, it still violates the spirit of that guideline by being a decorative compass.
  6. It takes up a tremendous amount of room for very little information.
  7. It is confusing and misleading, assigning absolute compass points that do not correspond to actual direction in many cases.
  8. Encourages a WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE problem, of trying to add something to every direction even if nothing notable is there, or close.
  9. There's no limit to the the abusability of it; nothing constrains it to use only for contiguous places, opening it to PoV use to point toward subjectively "important" places that aren't actually juxtaposed.
  10. It is not coded properly to collapse like other navboxes.

In general, this has a WP:NOT#WEBHOST problem, similar to various decorative quotation-formatting templates that were deleted a few years ago. WP doesn't exist for people's design experiments.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC) Clarifications added 02:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment--This needs to be redesigned, not deleted. This is used on thousands of pages. KMF (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    It's awful. Tony (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    And spoiler templates were also used in thousands of places. So were decorative icons before we said "enough" and instituted MOS:ICONS. "Used on thousands of pages" amounts to a "STUFFEXISTS" argument when there's not clear rationale for the use. What we need to address here is whether this actually serves a useful purpose. I've laid out a strong case that it does not.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    I edited the template sandbox. Is my version better, since it removes the icons (which are the main thing you're complaining about)? KMF (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    Not my main complaint at all; it's point 5 of 10, and one of the least significant.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    note that there is already an option for suppressing the compass icons. I would not be opposed to making that the default. Frietjes (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    If this template is kept, the compass icons should just be entirely removed, and the arrow ones replaced with Unicode characters (as icons, they confuse readers into thinking they're buttons that do something).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    Well, this is misapplying MOS:ICONS. The compass roses are not icons in that sense. Decoration in itself is not against policy. -- P 1 9 9   13:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
    It's against the guideline, which is not at all being misapplied here. (I would know since I drafted most of its key provisions.)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    As per KATMAKROFAN, this should be redesigned.
Example: Dhamar Governorate - I am thinking of a link somewhere in the file in the infobox, click to enlarge and see the location. Does that sound stupid? Lotje (talk) 13:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete I have to admit a certain guilt here, as I added it to nearly 1,000 articles three years ago. But I do agree that infoboxes and navboxes are often overused. And this one is of very limited use, violating many of the principles in WP:NAVBOX; notable neighbours should be described in prose in the text, and maybe with a map, and usually are. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as per all previous keep arguments at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 5#Template:Geographic Location. It is used extensively and consistently for municipalities in Ontario, Quebec, all of the Philippines and Benelux. These "good" examples show that if the suggestions at Template:Geographic location/doc are followed, most of the issues would be resolved. Moreover, most of the problems listed above are not unique to this template. In fact, every template is open to abuse and misuse, but that is not a deletion reason.
The usefulness of this template is as a navigational tool, linking the articles of the subject's adjacent settlements, it's not meant to be a detailed map. I have added this template to 1000s of articles because I want to be able to navigate to adjacent places in a specific direction. Yes, prose can do this too (to a point), but the template simplifies and facilitates this in the same way that we use other navigational templates. -- P 1 9 9   13:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete As I work on Los Angeles neighborhood articles, I have two issues. (1) Use of the template begs the question: What is the "correct" geographic entity to be listed on the Template. On Windsor Square, Los Angeles, a user created a Geographic Location Template listing very large neighborhoods as defined by the Los Angeles Times newspaper. But over on Wilshire Park, Los Angeles, a user created a Geographic Template listing much smaller adjacent neighborhoods as defined by local city signage. This complete lack of consistency is amplified in graphic form, as opposed to simply reading about "adjacent neighborhoods" in text form. It also speaks of the users POV -- do you support the LA Times view of Los Angeles as large neighborhoods or do you see the city as smaller neighborhoods as indicated by local signage. In text form, all adjacent neighborhoods, large and small, can be listed with no implied POV. But try to list all neighborhoods, large and small, many clustered within others, on the Geographic Template and it would be a cluttered mess. (2) And in both of the Los Angeles neighborhoods referenced above, the Template is plopped right in the middle of the page where it is an ugly waste of space. Phatblackmama (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong delete This simply does not serve a useful purpose. The information can much more efficiently be presented with prose. I can be abused to easily and creates confusion.Tvx1 17:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete as the nominator said, this looks like a holdover from the era of decorative templates. It can easily be replaced by prose in the (few) articles where this template serves an actual purpose.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Are very often incorrect, or contain redlinks. Not useful for the space they take up; readers can look at a map if they want to see neighboring places. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as per P199. Not sure why my last edit here was reverted... FUNgus guy (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - (edit) I agree with the 10 points in the deletion proposal. As for displaying "Geographic location", all of the pages I checked that are using this template already have maps on them, and if there are pages that don't it's easy enough to bring up a map by clicking on the Lat/Long coordinates. A map conveys the information much more accurately anyway. There is no not enough guidance for scale in the template's documentation. As a result, it's been used haphazardly with some using continental scale and others the next street over. I agree with Tony1 that "It's awful". Mojoworker (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
If this closes as no consensus (as it appears will happen), then I agree it should be reworked, and at the very least, consensus to restrict the inappropriate usage of the template, as has been discussed here, should be explicitly mentioned in the close. The template doc already says "While this template may be useful for cities, it certainly is redundant for continents, countries and other large geographical areas like states, provinces and islands". Perhaps this directive should be made more prominent. Mojoworker (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - Seem out of place. I've worked on some neighbourhood pages in the Saskatoon area and they tend to be out of date and look bad by stretching the page. Cowman 133 (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - I've never liked this template, and I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who finds it obtrusive and not useful. Maps and prose descriptions should be used instead. Robofish (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep (but!) - I agree with points 2-10. Its use should certainly be banned from the article body as it is not directly about the article but about its geographic surroundings. It belongs wrapped up in a {{navboxes}} template with all other navigational templates, hidden out of the way. See Esholt to see what I mean - this arrangement cuts the clutter and multiplicity of navigational boxes down to one box and streamlines the end of the article. It must be made collapsible like other templates in there, otherwise you are being presented with information without actually choosing to read it. Stuffed Cat (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Most of the nominator's objections are objections to common uses, but not objections to necessary uses, i.e. it's possible to use this template in a manner to which these objections aren't applicable, and the rest of the objections are fixable. Many of my points refer to its current use in Rice County, Kansas. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
A lot of text responding to each point
  1. When used at the end of the article, as here, it provides quick navigation to selected articles that are geographically relevant, as opposed to providing navigation to all articles about a class of places, as seen in the counties section of {{Kansas}}. That section's good for finding a county by name, but one doesn't typically navigate from Rice to Meade or Wallace (directly above and below, on my display) or from Rice to Riley or Republic, more than from Rice to any other article linked in that section. And also, when used here, it's far from maps (which routinely don't label adjacent jurisdictions anyway) and far from comparable prose text. In this article, if I go to the top and hit PageDown to scroll down until I reach the bottom, the page is nine screen-views tall, and the prose is split between screen-views two and three, so the box is six screen-views below the bottom of the relevant chunk of text. Why force the reader to scroll up to find prose, especially when said reader might not know where (or if) it's located?
  2. That's abuse. Abuse isn't relevant as long as proper use exists too.
  3. WP:BOLD; we don't need consensus to start using something. Its frequent use in articles about US counties (many states have it in all their county articles; I checked half of the WV counties, and all the pages I checked used it in an identical manner) demonstrates that editors working in this field generally agree with using it.
  4. WP:SOFIXIT
  5. Ditto
  6. Sometimes this is a good thing, e.g. when multiple jurisdictions are bordered on one side, so you need to have room to place all of them. Otherwise, SOFIXIT
  7. As it's meant to provide only a really quick guide, this is fine. If only a few jurisdictions are bordered, it doesn't matter; Rice County borders two counties to the west (quick unlabelled map), and whether you list them as southwest and northwest (as the article does now) or southwest and west, it doesn't matter. And if there are lots of jurisdictions, again there's no single answer; see what's done at the bottom of Cherry County, Nebraska, for example.
  8. Once again, that's abuse. Maybe this occurs in US county articles, but if it does, I've never seen it. See the western direction in the Rice County article, for example.
  9. Once again, that's abuse. It's good for use with contiguous places.
  10. The whole point is that it's visual and meant to provide quick navigation; as such, an uncollapsed box is better than a collapsed box, because it's more prominent.
And finally, WP:OSE really applies to articles and notability discussions. The presence of this template on thousands of pages is a solid argument that it's widely accepted, a solid argument against the idea that no consensus exists for its use. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a "necessary" use of this navbox; see point #1.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • delete. Though sometimes the links make sense more often at least some are wildly inappropriate, an arbitrary collection of things in different directions, sometimes POV or misleading. It takes up too much space and disagrees with various style guidelines. Important geographic relations should be part of the prose of the article, where other relevant information such as distances can be included, this should be deleted.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Nyttend. I use it, useful. --209.171.88.22 (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)209.171.88.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep as per P199. I find it much easier to navigate using this template rather than prose (which takes longer to find and understand). As for maps, they often tend to be too detailed, and links are harder to include. The sheer simplicity of this template is a big plus, as long as it isn't taken too literally. Mparrault (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nyttend. I do agree that, visually, it needs to be reformatted to match the standard navbox appearance. Huntster (t @ c) 21:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Point of information re: deletion point #2: Per MOS:SECTIONORDER these templates should be at the bottom of articles, not in the body. In case anyone didn't know. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It would be horrible if eliminated! Not all nearby locations will necessarily be in the text. A case-by-case review is a good idea for such a template. Heff01 (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I find it very useful, especially for navigating between neighbouring localities. Improve it by all means but no case for getting rid. User:PeterWerneth (talk) 13:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep It needs reworking and perhaps some way to put a smaller version in the bottom on an infobox (I'm sure I've seen this done) but that is no reason to delete this template.--Auric talk 01:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    If there's already code to do this in more compact form at the bottom of infoboxes, then that is actually a strong delete reason; TfD regularly deletes redundant templates.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    Without making an infobox significantly wider, there's no way to do that; the size of this template is a benefit in that it allows instant visibility, which you wouldn't have in something that's only about 300px wide. Nyttend (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: The template gives a good sense of the surrounding area and it is useful. 103.29.158.226 (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)103.29.158.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete - The formatting problems associated with this template when it is added mid-article, often awkwardly breaking the flow of the text, are nearly reason enough to do away with it. But even beyond that issue, the information presented by the template simply does not call for graphical representation. If some geographically adjacent place(s) are of particular importance or relevance, then it stands to reason that they ought to be presented in paragraph form in the body text rather than in this clunky template. If a nearby place is not important enough to be mentioned in the body text of the article, then in all likelihood it's not relevant enough to warrant mention at all. So far as I can tell, the only coherent reason that this template might be used is to place a spotlight on the directional relationship of adjacent places to each other, information which can just as easily be expressed in the body text instead (using terms like "northeast of", "to the southwest", etc). And suffice it to say, the reason the template is used only on "thousands" of articles is that so many editors have gone to great pains, and expended much time, diligently removing them from the tens of thousands of articles in which their placement was attempted. Jgcoleman (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Off-topic behavioral matter
  • Comment: not sure why User:Winged Blades of Godric felt the need to discredit many of the "keep" votes by labeling them as SPA's. Every use of this template has a deletion warning now, directing readers to this discussion. So of course it will attract edits here by editors who may not have made previous edits on this topic! Just like many of the "delete" voters have never made edits related to this template before... -- P 1 9 9   13:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    @P199:--Well, I don't think on the same lines.And I didn't selectively discredit the keep votes; it may be a coincidence but all the votes from SPA's were keep!Also, you may-have mis-read the definition of SPA.We use these templates on !votes/comments iff the !vote comes from a brand-new account with zero edits outside of the concerned topic.It does not ever specify that all the participants in an XfD shall have to be involved with the topic previously! Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 13:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    Well, I suppose it shows how useful this template actually is that it moves new editors to comment on it... -- P 1 9 9   13:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    @P199:--Err...Failed to get your point! Winged Blades Godric 16:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    The point is that you've abused the tag, even using it to mark someone who's made over a thousand edits in five years of editing here. Sanctions will be requested if you again attempt to discredit your opponents with such a gross falsehood. Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    If this is about the "If you came here because" box, it seems appropriate since editors with no history are !voting here, and we include that notice routinely. If this is about some other template, since removed, that singled someone out as a possible SPA, disregard this comment.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This template has consistent and uniform use across Ontario, for example, where the geographies may not be as gridlike as in Kansas. It would be difficult to describe the adjacent municipalities of Unorganized North Algoma District in prose. FUNgus guy (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep! I find them to be quite useful when browsing, as it can be enjoyable to follow them from article to article, as if one was taking a 'trip' through a particular region. This cannot easily be done if it were put in prose. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    Amen! That's exactly how I use them too. Prose or any other template can't be used in the same way. -- P 1 9 9   19:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nyttend and FUNgus guy. While this template may sometimes be used where it doesn't serve a useful function, counties of Kansas and other states and provinces are a perfect illustration of where it does. In most US states, there are scads of counties; a natural region or metro area will typically span more than one of them. You read about one such county, you get to the end of the article, and hey look, how convenient, here are links to the next few counties nearby on the same topic. I know I've done that myself as a reader. Q·L·1968 18:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Redux: Thoughts in Favor of Deletion
  1. In an effort to move the discussion forward, I first want to start by acknowledging what I believe to be the most coherent arguments in favor of keeping this template. Nyttend noted that "it provides quick navigation to selected articles that are geographically relevant, as opposed to providing navigation to all articles about a class of places". Nyttend also explains that it functions differently from maps "which routinely don't label adjacent jurisdictions anyway" and is "far from comparable prose text".
  2. I contend that the template is a clunky and inefficient means of introducing information of geographical relevance. Clunky in the sense that it awkwardly tries to produce what is basically a graphic using a table; inefficient in that the ratio of useful information to navbox real estate is excruciatingly low with this template. There are several ways to present geographically relevant information which are either intrinsically preferred on Wikipedia (prose) or otherwise widely accepted (maps or conventional, information-dense navboxes). What does this contentious template really offer that all of these other uncontroversial methods do not? In my view, little or perhaps nothing.
  3. It succeeds only in producing an over-sized visual which elevates the directional orientation of neighboring geographical places to a level that simply isn’t relevant. Article prose is perfectly suited toward introducing neighboring places and describing their directional orientation if desired, maps graphically reinforce the prose and information-dense navboxes provide a library of loosely-related links where applicable. Can the case really be made that Southwestingham’s compass orientation to Northeastburg is of such special relevance to Northeastburg that it cannot be satisfied by all of these other methods and instead warrants a navbox all it’s own? In my view, that case cannot be made convincingly.—Jgcoleman (talk) 04:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
2. It is NOT a map but navigational tool, so it doesn't need to be graphic, and the low "ratio of useful information to navbox real estate" is not bad in itself (a high ratio would likely be unhelpful clutter). I do support making the template collapsible. Other navigation tools and prose do not allow you to "travel" is a specific direction (or certainly not with such ease).
3. The directional orientation is merely an approximation (just as it would be in prose) and doesn't need to be precise because it doesn't serve that purpose. Again, its purpose is to provide quick links to adjacent places. It that way it fulfills it purpose in the same way as other templates. -- P 1 9 9   20:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not this template serves a very narrow purpose is not really the question here. That's an important distinction. Instead, the question is whether or not that very narrow purpose is relevant enough and clear enough and uniquely useful enough for the template to remain a part of the bigger picture on Wikipedia. The question is whether or not, in practice, the template is basically a superfluous tool for displaying information that is more effectively introduced through any or all other, more preferable means (as outlined above).—Jgcoleman (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is the place where you don't delete it if you can make it better. If it's not used correctly in an article, remove it from that article or move it to be a better place in the article. It's not the greatest tool, but I believe it is better than nothing. In Illinois, it is often used for townships which are square divisions of counties. They fit this template very well. Perhaps use of the tool should be limited to instances when it can be used clearly as opposed to its use for other areas. MPen320 (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2017 (CT)
    You are speaking of large areas with hard, legal boundaries. The problem arises with the question of which neighborhoods get listed on the template. Look at the Template here. It places "Koreatown & Mid-Wilshire" south of "Windsor Square". Now look at this Template here. Same vicinity, but it places "Country Club Park" south of "Windsor Square". Are both templates right? Are they both wrong? How is a user to know? This can easily be expressed in prose, but in graphical form it is problematic and needs to go. Phatblackmama (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nasty, clunky; serves no real purpose. Irritating constraint to the cardinal directions. Where would Skokie appear in this template, displayed on Chicago? Would Evanston be to the North and, if so, what about Winnetka? (Oh, template not used in this article: Good!) What might be nice would be a clickable map of some sort, so the reader could zoom and pan freely and decide which adjacentish locations to investigate. If only that tool existed...Xiongtalk* 01:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    Like most of the other delete voters, you give examples where this template shouldn't be used, but deletion isn't appropriate if there are situations where the template should be used, and you don't address the issue of why you think the "keep" voters' examples (e.g. mine, Rice County, Kansas) aren't appropriate. Since you mention Skokie, Illinois, would you explain why the current use there is inappropriate? Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    Please stop playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU. The entire point of this deletion nomination, and those backing the deletion, is that there are no appropriate uses of it – that the information in it is better presented some other way(s), for numerous reasons.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    That tool does exist. See the drop-down map for Skokie in German Wikipedia. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not defined well enough to be useful. For example, why is Manhattan said to be Southwest of the Bronx when, along most of the west border on the Bronx, the area immediately to the west is Manhattan? Why is Germany not listed as being north of Austria, but Romania is listed as being to the east of Hungary (see Geography of Hungary for the template at Hungary)? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    That is not a deletion reason, but a typical misconception. Too many nay-sayers think that this is supposed to be a map. But it is merely a directional navigation tool. If there are mistakes, fix it. -- P 1 9 9   14:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, it is a deletion reason. If enough people keep having that "misconception", then the tool itself is ill-conceived. Phatblackmama (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
    Exactly. This is a tool with no fitness to purpose. Its accessibility-hating code is not salvageable, so there is no "fix it" argument. The fact that someone somewhere might like it is irrelevant. If there's not a consensus that this is the best way to do it, it needs to go. All kinds of poor navigation ideas (including some created by me, ha ha) have been deleted here over the years. Not because they were totally pointless, but because they were not maximally useful approaches with low impact on readers. E.g., a thin page-top navbar I created for timeline articles ("2008 in motor sports", whatever) was deleted, and we now use a compact sidebar. Sounds familiar.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  15:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    This is where we disagree. Just because you don't see a purpose doesn't mean that there are no other users who do find it useful. As I stated before, if the guidelines are followed (and the 1000s of proper uses prove that), the template is a concise navigational tool that has no equivalent. All the objections listed at the top have been refuted. The bottom line of the nay-sayers is mostly "I don't like it". But all this doesn't mean that we also object to redesigning the template. I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to make it collapsible to start with. -- P 1 9 9   20:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per Nyttend and P199, although as QuartierLatin1968 pointed out the template shouldn't be used when it is unnecessary. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Its usage is inconsistent at best in over a decade, it's huge, and it's inaccessible. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 07:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can see why they work poorly at the national level, but I find them very useful at the municipal level. Prburley (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep and repair. CJK09 (talk · contribs) 16:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I've been using this template to add Ontario municipalities to OpenStreetMap - it makes it easy to tell what borders what. By the way, what happens to the existing data stored in this template if the deletionists win? Will it be deleted? Someone should back up the current instances of the template in case of that eventuality. Mparrault (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what would be backed up as this template just spatially lists adjacent places that could just as easily be found on a map. Anyhow, in most cases, those places will either be mentioned in the article itself if they carry any reasonable relevance or listed in a conventional navbox otherwise. There's just no uniquely valuable information invested in these templates that would warrant a backup for posterity (and that's precisely the reason that many are in favor of deletion... it's seen as a superfluous template). —Jgcoleman (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Another silly comment that tells us to just refer to a map! That is like saying to remove all navboxes because you could just as easily use a directory. The whole point of the template is to avoid having to take out a map!!! And by far most articles don't mention adjacent places or certainly don't refer to them in a logical, concise way. So yes, there is most certainly "uniquely valuable information invested in these templates". -- P 1 9 9   01:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Not silly, at all. My complaint is coherent and sensible, whether or not it comports with your point of view. If a given article doesn't "mention adjacent places" or "refer to them in a logical, concise way", then I would contend that either a) they aren't relevant enough to be mentioned or b), if they are relevant enough to be mentioned, the situation ought to be rectified by adding them to the prose "in a logical, concise way". —Jgcoleman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete! Not up to professional standards. Everything bad said about it is true. It is too a map, and calling it a navigational aid does not change its map character. Only, it is not a modern map. It looks the ancient Roman maps such as the Peutinger map. Why are we re-inventing the map? True, its use in one article can be manipulated. But now, we have thousands of arguments going about whether an instance can or should be deleted. If I want to see the neighborhood I click on the coordinates, pick my map, and zoom in on it. Chances are, I never even get to the bottom. This template gives us someone's scrawled map. Let's save ourselves the trouble and get rid of it. I doubt it will be missed in any way whatever.Botteville (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Not useful for the space they take up; readers can look at a map if they want to see neighboring places.--AlfaRocket (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep This should be kept, but find a way to repair it so it won't have any of the issues mentioned above. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment: I agree about finding a way to repair it. It seems to me that a clearly worded guideline about "when not to use this template" in the template documentation ought to cover most of the grounds for complaint above. (But admittedly not the subjective ones like "ugly, horrible", which I scarcely know what to say about.) Q·L·1968 03:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Deprecate I have never been a fan of these and I question their usefulness. However I acknowledge that some like them, and concede that in some instances they may be useful. Perhaps if the decision is made to keep, then a section in WP:MOS that covered their use and abuse would be in order. However one point that doesn't seem to have been made is that the template is not displayed on mobile devices (at least not on mine) in either a browser or the Wikipedia app. Although wp is not a travel guide, I think that having this information available for mobile users would be most beneficial. My suggestion then is to deprecate the use of this template in favour of adding it to info boxes in list form. By deprecating rather than deleting, the information would still be easily available to enable transfer. It might even be possible to create a bot to do the job. This would be far better than having thousands of articles with template errors.Derek Andrews (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Additional comment Having had a chance to look at some of the alternative options, I am further convinced that outright deletion is not the correct thing to do right now. I think User:P199's reworked collapsible version should address a lot of concerns, but really do think WP:MOS is the place to address where (ie at the end of the article) and how this template should be used as it has more clout than template documentation. I also like the the drop down map used on the German wiki. Is there a reason we don't use that here?Derek Andrews (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: not sure why it had to be relisted again (there is no consensus: the nay-sayers will not agree to the arguments of the ones that find the template useful). But in order to address the complaints that the template is too big, well I made the sandbox version collapsible and made it look more in line with other navboxes, see Template:Geographic location/sandbox. -- P 1 9 9   20:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I always cringe whenever I run into one of these on an article. If we want some kind of spacial-navigation then we need to do it via some sort of map. Alsee (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - Lets see if this template can be reworked a bit before outright deletion. It also really bothers me that there are a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT comments here as Delete opinions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - the geographical pictorial is critical; "a picture is worth a thousand words"... Castncoot (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep per the rationale of Earl Andrew above; a useful template for navigating neighboring geographic places. North America1000 07:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've often seen this used unhelpfully in Indian, Australian, and other articles. It often seems to be thrown in simply because it's available. Including {{coord}} in articles, which provides links to maps from which neighboring places can be seen, should be sufficient. If proximity to other settlements is useful information, that should be mentioned in the text of an article. Deor (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I am going to bring us back to the Unorganized North Algoma District example again. The municipal-level entities are listed east-to-west along the south, and north-to-south looking west. THIS is what this template was created for: to visually represent its neighbours in a consistent manner. Just because it is used inappropriately on some pages is NO excuse to delete it. If you have a Google Maps-type replacement for this template, then by all means bring it. Until then, Strong keep. FUNgus guy (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - I find it very useful when looking at articles on municipalities and local neighbourhoods. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - It gives something unique: arrangement of notable places around the main place. Incorrect or misleading usage should be corrected for specific cases, absolutely not a reason to delete template from all articles. Also, proposer said that this info is included in article text; this is not true and closest surrounding places are not supposed to be [or are not] descibed in the article main body but in templates such as this one. Other arguments are mostly invalid or insufficient for deletion. I might agree only that use of flag icons should be forbidden here; I guess this way of decoration with flag was not that much present before one or two years. And I oppose recent change of this template to navobx collapsible; it was better when info is displayed directly. --Obsuser (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
If the places surrounding the subject place are relevant and "notable", then there is absolutely no reason they cannot be mentioned in the article. The idea that they "are not supposed to be" mentioned in the article body is entirely incorrect. Further, in cases where relevant/notable adjacent places aren't mentioned in the article text, it would in fact be best to craft a few sentences to remedy the problem rather than invest energy in a navbox which would ideally be rendered redundant with a truly complete geographical component to the article text.—Jgcoleman (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
That could be said of all navboxes, so you're missing the point of the template. A geography paragraph/prose would be good to add but doesn't serve the same purpose. In comparison: most municipality articles will have a navbox for other municipalities in the same jurisdiction. See for example Drummondville. It has the navbox {{Drummond RCM}}. We're not going to describe in paragraph format all municipalities that are in the same Regional County, but it is still good to have links to them, hence the Drummond RCM template. Same for adjacent places, hence this geographic location template. -- P 1 9 9   14:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Some Geographic maps are there for reasons. If we kept it, we should find ways to repair it to avoid those issues above. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I found it useful on several occasions, as it gives an idea of the surroundings of a place without having to refer to a map, thereby saving time. If someone has an idea how to improve it, by all means let us know. --Schlosser67 (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I would love to see a better alternative made available. Something related to location information, etc. Until that happens, I say keep this template. I find it useful when navigating articles about neighbourhoods. What is the neighbourhood to the east, etc. I don't think there is a good way to do this in prose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaney2k (talkcontribs) 19:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:High Desert/ Eastern Sierra RadioEdit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. Primefac (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

This template violates WP:OR. The 2014 media market map by Nielsen Audio (formerly Arbitron) does not include "High Desert" but does include the Victor Valley and Los Angeles. Some stations in this template are also included in more geographically appropriate templates like Template:Los Angeles Radio and Template:Victor Valley Radio.

There was a TFD decision on June 30 to approve merging certain small market templates to more geographically appropriate ones per Arbitron. But I cannot find any proper way to merge this one. Arbor to SJ (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Alternative: Rename to Template:Antelope Valley Radio, because I think the area of Kern County excluded from the Bakersfield metero area in the Nielsen/Arbitron map linked earlier is part of the Antelope Valley, which is more defined/specific than High Desert. Arbor to SJ (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • NOTE: We can NOT use ANY information by Nielsen after the great television media market template deletion request about a decade back at their request. Yeah, bad idea. - NeutralhomerTalk • 01:43 on July 22, 2017 (UTC)
    • Aah, I see what you mean:
In that case, the templates should be arranged by the public domain core based statistical areas and counties of California. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Per {{California Radio Markets}}, it appears there are templates for the Nielsen Radio (formerly Arbitron) markets, plus others (such as the nominated template) that seem to have been created as "catch-all" templates for stations that lie outside the formally designated markets. If we need to abandon the Neilson/Arbitron classification scheme, maybe we could group the other ones by metropolitan or micropolitan areas per above, and classify stations outside metro/micro areas by county (for example, {{Bishop Radio}} would be known as "Inyo County Radio," and would include some of the stations in the nominated template). Or, maybe we don't need to include every single station in navigation templates, especially in low-population, non-metropolitan areas like this. szyslak (t) 08:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still some room for discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Where it is used inappropriately it can be removed as per the merits of its use. A blanket deletion serves little purpose. Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Mtaylor848, could you comment specifically concerning the argument that "media market map" by Nielsen Audio does not include "High Desert". otherwise, it looks like your comment was meant for the discussion directly above this one. Frietjes (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep, without prejudice against reorganizing the templates differently. We're not locked into having to replicate the media markets exactly the way Nielsen defines them, as the nominator seems to believe — Neutralhomer is in fact correct that Nielsen considers the definitions of its media markets to be proprietary data, which we got slapped with a takedown order for replicating in the past. So for the purposes of templating or categorizing radio stations, we have to group them differently than Nielsen does. I don't know the California radio scene anywhere near well enough to know what the ideal grouping is here, so I leave it to editors with more expertise in that area to determine, but precisely replicating Nielsen markets isn't on the list of options. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).