Template talk:Mapgroup

Discussion

While updating California county articles (example: Fresno County#Go next) I've found that the "Go next" sections are significantly more usable if there is a map showing the neighboring counties in relation to the current county, and to this point I've been hard-coding those maps using combinations of {{mapframe}} and {{mapshape}}. Since a "map of mapshapes" capability seems like functionality that would be beneficial to a variety of use cases, and since there is value in implementing this sort of thing consistently, I've now moved the implementation to a template. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice, I like Fresno_County#Go_next. I didn't realize the map functionality could do this, so will give it a go. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

When to use and maybe when not to use?

I find that maps in this section can hang below the end of the codes at the ends of articles when I view articles on my laptop's browser (I use the latest version of Firefox on a Windows 8.1 system). How do people feel about whether "Go next" maps should be standard, or when it's most useful and appropriate to use them? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Coords in the "Go next" map appearing in the main map while the coords for the "Go next" map have disappeared

Swept in from the pub

Title. See Mungo National Park or Wine Regions of Ontario for example. (cc @Andyrom75:) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I know this is a tangent, but "Go next" maps are usually not needed and can extend beyond the ends of articles on laptop browsers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but Template:Mapgroup has existed since 2017 – which is quite some time, so they're somewhat established. Also, most of our new Quebec articles now use these templates. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it was created for this site, was it? It's never been standard, and I've deleted quite a few of them for being unnecessary and/or extending below the end of the codes. The fact that the new articles about Quebec have such maps does not mean we should keep them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This was created by Ryan and its usage purpose is on Template talk:Mapgroup. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Maybe it's worth more discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

SHB2000, Ikan Kekek, check Mungo National Park article now. I used a "more standard" template in place of the one was there. Let mw know what you think about it. --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks much better as a replacement. It might also work better for wroo as well. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

SHB2000, feel free to apply such change there too. --Andyrom75 (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

But is there a way to fix this issue? The current template is used on a sizable number of articles and replacing all of that will be tedious. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Andyrom75's solution is great, but it will be a big, tedious job to fix all of the articles that use mapgroup. Ground Zero (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

On the first look, it could be easily done by a small script replacing "mapgroup" for "mapframe|show=vicinity" (+the same for mapgroup-item) - once it's agreed to be done... (@wrh2: your template is in existential danger :) ) -- andree 08:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, I've restored the functionality of the Mapgroup & Mapgroup-item templates. Now it's just a matter of discussion when it's better to use one or the other approach.

Just one note "Mapgroup-item" do not add just the POI/marker but it adds also the mapshape, this is something that we don't do on it:voy so initially I've overlooked it. --Andyrom75 (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Now that I've look better into these two templates, let me add one more thing. They use the "vicinity" type of listing but actually is not correct because "vicinity" is already and typically used for "other destination" markers, hence the places INSIDE the territory in the subject of the article. The "Go next" section, where are used these templates, should use the "around" type because OUTSIDE the article's territory. If you all agree I'll change the type. --Andyrom75 (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure. That looks good to me. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Andyrom75 (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)