User talk:Caroig/Archive 2

Beskids

Hello Caroig. I am not so much deepened in the information about whole Moravian-Silesian Beskids range, so when introducing a few additional sentences I was not aiming to bring some one-sided POV issues there. I will not add "see also" links again but still I think it is important to mention that the smaller eastern part (including Lysá hora btw) is a part of Cieszyn Silesia (Těšínské Slezsko historical region), see the map in that article. It is an important historical region, Euroregion Cieszyn Silesia was created by the EU to reflect this. When you will expand the article it will be balanced then. I have a mountain cabin at the very end of the range, nice view of Silesian Beskids is present. So sorry about any inconvenience and misunderstanding caused by my edits. I will re-add only the sentence about Těšínské Slezsko, feel free to alter it. P.S. On CS wiki there is a nice article about Vsetínské vrchy (with photo). Do you plan to create EN wiki article about it? If not, I can translate it. Article about Smrk mountain would be welcomed too, since it is the second largest mountain of the range and a popular tourist spot. Take care. - Darwinek 00:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw., we can communicate in Czech if you want. :) - Darwinek 00:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain range infobox template problem! - me too

I have the template on my watchlist so saw you seem to have tried what I did too - on Cayoosh Range (see edit history there). It's up and running on some ranges (Sierras, Rockies, maybe the Cascade Range) but the template if copied straight from the quoted section doesn't format things right, right? I think it's because of all the | marks and that they're put at the beginning of a line, instead of stacke up (as the deg-min-sec-E/W/N/S lines should be). I was gonna go back at it without using the template directly, and just copy-pasting from one of the working ones and overwriting the "data fields". I think the template needs to come with an instruction book about which lines have to be "stacked up", or else it said that and I didn't notice; it should be simpler to use, that's for sure. Is there any reason, do you think the separate components/figures of the latitude and longitude have to be separate fields? Could just make them all one string (especially since so many sources are going to be copy-paste from source websites, even for the degrees symbol. Maybe I should have put this on the template's talkpage, but as I saw you were someone else who'd tried it, I thought I'd see what went wrong, and why, as I've got all kinds of articles on ranges that could use this box; laborious to fill out as it is.....Skookum1 09:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox River geography

Thanks very much for all of your hard work on Infobox River geography. I think the map / image first switch is a good idea. If I see a map, it gives me a very good idea of the river, but many people are not as "map literate" and so I think the image is more often going to be helpful. I agree with User:Malepheasant about the need for < ref > tags in the infobox. I will comment about that on the infobox talk page. Finally, I just wanted to say I think you are very lucky - Prague is a beautiful city and it must be wonderful to live there! Thanks, Ruhrfisch 12:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again for your work and accomodation; I've switched over Salem River now from the sandbox you offered -- I even removed a couple of citation notes that were well-enough covered in the text of the article. I will give your new infobox a try on some new articles, and I'll note with interest (and an open mind) the new template's usage and stability in coming weeks and months. I wish you well in your aims -- though there is one thing I KNOW I won't be changing my mind about... You probably know what that is :-) --Malepheasant 04:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map in Mendip Geobox

Thanks for putting the map into the Geobox on the Mendip Hills article - but on my browser it shows the hills being in the water of the Severn Estuary - this is the problem I was having earlier.— Rod ^talk 20:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at the Category talk:Geobox anticipating the problem with the slightly displaced locator dot. – Caroig 20:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brno

Zdar kolego. Jako wikipedista Kirk přispívám do české wikipedie. Nechápu, co tě vedlo k tomu, že jsi ve zdejším článku Brno nahradil kvalitní infobox obsahující veškerá data o Brně, takovým úděsným infoboxem, který je tam teď. S pozdravem --KirkEN 17:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geobox Protected Area

Hi, I've been trying to use Template:Geobox Protected Area to replace the template currently on Whitton Bridge Pasture. However I've been having a number of problems when I've been trying it out here. What is the best way of finding out the numbers for placing the dot on the map. Currenlty I am doing it by tiral and error and comparing it to the current template which did it automatically when you typed in the Lat and Long. Also the free fields do not seem to display correctly and are always wiki linked which isn't ideal. Finally the conversion from hectares to acres seems to be a bit out when comparing with on-line converters. If you could have a look at it that would be very much appreciated. My attempt can be found here. Thanks. - Suicidalhamster 21:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• free fields - One of the features of the geoboxes that it checks whether field values exists as a wikipage and if it is so, it wikilinks them. However, I see it's not so good idea for the free fields so I've removed this feature for them. As of the free1 field not displayed, taht's was a bug in the template. Any other isuues with free fields?

• hectare conversion - Rather than being out, you just get rounded figure, the template rounds the calculations for 0 decimal digits by default, you can change that by inserting area_round = 2.

• location maps - Well, the template supports even the automated location dot placement, though the internals are somewhat different and more flexible than for the old template. However, this feature is not yet complete, there are a few issues I have to work out:

1. a locator calibration must exist for a given map (I write articles about the Czech Republic and Slovakia so I only bothered to calibrate those two maps), I'll callibrate the UK map as soon as possible
2. from the same reason, the locator dot placement will fail when used on something on the Western or Southern hemisphere (even partly), it should be easy to fix that
3. the system would also not work on a map in a conical projection (which the UK fortunately isn't), from this reason the relative locator_x, locator_y system was introduced so that the locator dot could be used on real any map (before I added the automated dot placement based on coordinates I used a higly sofisticated way to get the coordinates: using a ruler on a paper map ;-)

I'll let you know when I solve the location system. There are now more templates in the Geobox series and bugs are popping out everywhere so it might take some time before I attend to all of them. But I always will. If there's any other problem, feel free to post it here. – Caroig 22:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for that, the choice of how many decimal places for the area number is a very nice feature. Is there anyway to turn off the wiki links for the free_type as well, because there is not always a very useful place for them to link to. e.g 'Interest' in the template I was playing with. Thanks - Suicidalhamster 23:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works like a dream, thank you very much. However (sorry always seems to be one!) it does seem to have stopped map_first working, the map is displayed at the bottom. Don't worry no stone throwing necessary as this isn't all that important, more of a FYI! Thanks again. - Suicidalhamster 23:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geobox locator

Thanks for your help with the Geobox locator - yes I did manage to sort it. There are now very few uses of the other UK map (the green one) - but it might be useful to calibrate that one as well, as it could still be used by people installing the Geobox.— Rod ^talk 16:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Hello. Can I request your help? Thing is, most of articles about various subdivisions (regions, provinces etc.) haven't infobox or have manually written ones (blah!). I would like to create ones for each needing country, design based on your geoboxes. Or should an universal one be created? Zdravím. - Darwinek 20:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know many fields will be the same but I think it will do no harm to have separate "Geobox (Infobox) Country Subdivision". Other fields to add would be ISO, subdivision seat or capital, HDI, politicians representing the subdivision (see e.g. Zacatecas) etc. Also I would like to see option to change the colour of the header. Let me know about recent developments since I can't wait to implement it. Many articles need it like a salt, see e.g. Saint Mary Cayon Parish, Midtjylland or Granma Province. - Darwinek 11:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for your response and work. It looks nice. Just a few points. a.) I would propose more friendly color than just pink, maybe pistáciová :) #AEFHAD ? b.) /doc page needs major editing to become apparent it is not a "town" one. c.) Most of districts etc. doesn't have coat of arms or flags (have on mind that template would be used for countries such as Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Vanuatu etc.) but a map is almost always available. So I propose moving map field to the top, it is just a matter of design. It would look much better if the map would be on top and below some 10 fields of data.

Regards. - Darwinek 23:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I tried map_first parameter in several geoboxes and it just don't work. The map will disappear. Maybe it is alright, and I just typed it wrongly, try it yourself.

As for the colours. Maybe a transparent header would be a compromise? I also like #b0c4de colour, which seems to be generally accepted and used in many infoboxes. I know it is also used in Geobox River but you know, people know what the article is about, so keeping it consistent za každou cenu is quite unnecessary. - Darwinek 16:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that color parameter, also new city parameter is a nice move, too. As for the clickable map. Well, it would be nice to have it but I think we could sacrifice it. I am not an expert in programming issues but I suppose it would be very difficult to implement it into the infobox. - Darwinek 22:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giving up on infobox city?

Hi - Your latest post at Template talk:Infobox City sounds like you're giving up on merging this to your geobox town template. I think this is actually quite a good idea. There are 3000 or so references to infobox city so converting to new parameter names will be quite a task, but consistent parameter naming is a good thing. Please have patience, and don't abandon this effort. I'll reply there as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of problems was the dual parameter names causing to take them out of the code? —MJCdetroit 17:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{Geobox Mountain Range}}

I'm trying to do a piped-link (points to|link text) for the highest-point parameter and that appears to be impossible, after glancing at the syntax. It appears that the template employs {{Geobox link}}, which allows for piped links, but there unfortunately is no way to access this feature by way of the mountain range geobox. I see you're the primary contributor.. could you please add that sort of functionality to the template? I would but I'm not totally familiar with all the quirks. Also you might be interested in using {{convert}} in your infoboxes.. it can convert most units used here on the wikipedia. -- drumguy8800 C T 19:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, k that works ;) -- drumguy8800 C T 19:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template Unit area & Unit area density

Sorry I meant to revert after looking at a few pages and post a discussion about the abbreviations, but I got distracted. However, here's what I was planning to say: sq mi and sq ft are the most common ways of abbreviating square mile(s) and square foot(feet). Those abbreviations are more familiar to people use the imperial system on a daily basis. We had a debate over at WP:MOSNUM a while ago about which abbreviation for square mile is preferred because someone (bobblewik I think?) was changing mi² and sq mi to mile² or sq mile; which was too long for infoboxes. We came to the conclusion that the preferred abbreviation would be the traditional sq mi to make to stand apart from the scientific/metric method used by square kilometres. It didn't seem to take up that much extra space either. It seems to have worked well over at Infobox City. Also, I bought this up over a Template:convert shortly after drumguy developed it but I never really followed up on it. What are your thoughts? —MJCdetroit 17:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Districts

Thanks for your help as well. I just got back from Praha, and I must say it is incredible. Karlovy Vary was a dream - if only I would open up a store there, I would always remain at peace. Rarelibra 22:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geobox River glitch

Hi Caroig-- A recent adjustment seems to have caused a glitch associated with the "length_imperial" field in this template. You can see the effect at Salem River -- the length is shown as "30 mi(48 km)", lacking a space between the two calculations. Cheers if it can be fixed -- Best wishes, Malepheasant 07:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! -- Malepheasant 08:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conversions

Hi, Caroig! What I was trying to do is to clean up the Category:Conversion templates to get rid of the duplicates. The templates I removed (and deprecated) all had a counterpart with better functionality. For example, {{Unit km}} was deprecated because {{km to mi}} does exactly the same conversion, but provides more formatting options. There just is no good reason to have both templates—it only confuses the end users! On the other hand, you are right about {{Unit length}}, but that one is not a direct counterpart of any of the templates I deprecated. It, however, aims to do the same thing as {{conv-dist}}, but, again, the latter does it better, so it would make sense for {{Unit length}} to go.

I am not suggesting that "Unit x" templates are to be deleted, but you might want to consider upgrading their functionality by borrowing from the code of the "x to y" templates (and then speedying those). The conversion templates have a far greater potential for usage besides geoboxes, so artificially restricting their functionality for one single purpose (geoboxes) completely forgoes other benefits. On the other hand, if for one reason or another geoboxes do require a set of dedicated templates of their own, then, of course, my decision to deprecate them was incorrect. In that case, however, you might want to consider updating those templates documentation to clearly state their limited purpose.

I hope this provides a sufficient explanation for my actions. Now, if you wish to complete the cleanup on your own, it would be wonderful. Let me know if I can be of any help. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I, too, think that the universal templates are the way to go. Unfortunately, I learned about their existence only after I created almost a dozen of unit-specific converters. Fortunately, the ones I created turned out to be better than those already listed in Category:Conversion templates, so I thought I'd start with cleaning up those first (there had been duplicates there even before I showed up). Anyway, I don't know how far you are from reaching your goal of the unified conversion template, but the idea was that no matter how soon (or late) it is going to happen, people wouldn't have to wade through the duplicates in the conversions category in the interim. A half-assed cleanup is better than no cleanup, wouldn't you agree? :) The Category:Conversion templates now contains 47 entries (including the duplicates you restored) instead of previous 60+. I'd say it's an improvement.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, at least some good came out of it! :) In any case, I apologize for deprecating the templates before asking. It was due purely to my laziness, but that, of course, is no excuse in such matters. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locations maps in the Geobox Region template

Greetings Caroig.

Darwinek has informed me that you maintain the {{Geobox Region}} template, so could you possibly run a few tests on it using different browsers? When I use Firefox (ver. 2.0.0.2) the location map is aligned with the left-hand side of the box, which looks slightly odd, I would have expected the map to be centered. However, when I switch to Internet Explorer 7.0 (ver. 7.0.5730.11), the location map becomes completely misplaced, only occupying the right-hand half of the box, with the other half of the map sticking out of the box. This is the case e.g. with articles like Region Sjælland and it also applies to the test box on Template_talk:Geobox_Region. Otherwise, it looks like a nice template, but would you mind looking into this issue? Happy editing. Valentinian ^T / C 22:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, some entities only have a logo rather than a flag or a coat of arms. This applies to the Danish regions, e.g. Region Syddanmark and Region Hovedstaden. I'm not sure if the templates supports such an insignia, but it would be a nice feature. Valentinian ^T / C 22:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you did, but the articles for Danish regions look ok now in both IE 7.0 and Firefox 2. Nice work. Valentinian ^T / C 10:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it's working OK again.--Harkey Lodger 17:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geobox Region

Hello. I would like to implement Geobox Region to several articles (OK, OK, with the pink salmon header). Can I go ahead or are you still in the middle of some major work with it? Btw I saw your Geobox Page move, IMO it is not a good option, editing the infobox should be possible in the article not somewhere outside. It is also a lot easier and more transparent. - Darwinek 20:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is to not copy whole infobox code to the articles but just needed fields (others can be always added). It resembles me a situation with Infobox Mountain when fields regarding map grids in Ireland were added to the mountains of Chile, Kenya etc. :). As for the bugs and reports, I have looked at West Chester, Pennsylvania and with current formatting it should have show no whitespace, nonetheless one is still there. See this version. - Darwinek 21:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ghosts surfing the Wikipedia :). It shows OK to me now, too. Inserting whole code is OK, better for less experienced users. I see no problem in long code in the article, we are also inserting "scroll down to edit ..." etc. sentences to make it clear to absolute novices. It is just fine. - Darwinek 22:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am just here to say clickable map of Cuban provinces is not a good idea anyway. I made some user tests and that map was not properly displayed in many browsers. I think current format is quite good and nifty :). - Darwinek 23:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I didn't filled up municipalities intentionally because of quite recent "Dominican Republic affair" when it was revealed some user long time ago added fictional municipalities to the article. :() - Darwinek 23:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe little districts are a thing of the future but Districts (okresy) as still viewed as a second major subdivision after kraje. Just see German, Polish and Esperanto Wikipedias have articles about all districts. Their importance is also reflected on the CZ Wikipedia where all articles about CZ municipalities have their infobox with okres highlighted. So I recommend to use a convetion we use here for a long time, it would be much more consistent then. --Darwinek 23:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starý Plzenec

I've replied to your last post on my talk page, but I just noticed that Starý Plzenec looks odd in IE (more wonders from Bill Gates). The entire text is located below the infoboxes. On the other hand, the page looks fine in Firefox. Regards. Valentinian ^T / C 21:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We would like to invite you to join WikiProject Czech Republic, a project dedicated to building and maintaining a large and neutral database of Czech Republic-related articles on Wikipedia. To join, simply add your name here.

≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mendip Hills FAC

Thanks for your edits of Mendip Hills. I have now put it up as a Featured Article Candidate & comments, support or opposition is being recorded at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mendip Hills.— Rod ^talk 10:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commonscat5

Hi You created {{Commonscat5}} back whenever, and I see it's not used. We're consolidating most of the numbered suffixed ones down to a single template. Did you havre a particular application you needed filled? Or might I suggest you {{db-author}} it and we can do a clean sweep of all the unnecessary ones?! Let me know. Thanks // FrankB 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I probably used this as a sandbox, sorry, should've deleted it after I had finished playing with the pail and bucket. – Caroig 22:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Cool -- we'll clean up the whole set this way. Appreciated. // FrankB 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geobox River

Hi Caroig, thanks for the advance notice about the coming update. I find I'm generally satisfied with the template. I gave it some thought and there aren't any ideas that spring to mind for big improvements. Thanks and best wishes in your upgrading-- Malepheasant 03:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There does appear to be a glitch ("Expression error") with the imperial fields since the update, see West Fork River. Now that you mention it, I do think that "source confluence" sounds better than "sources confluence." Thanks-- Malepheasant 20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for that correction. I found another: In the display version of the various coordinates fields, the E/W designation is missing from the second set of coordinates, resulting in an error when you click on the link to map sources. (See West Fork River or Dneiper for examples.) Thanks!

Some additional parameters

• It needs something like discharge1_note for that information. I have added it but it's not showing up, and if a primary discharge location should be sourced so should a secondary one.

• Also, consider discharge_year. We've found with American rivers that the USGS, on its waterdata website, doesn't publish long-term averages, just a table year-by-year. Daniel Case 17:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What I'd like this one to do is put the year we're using for the discharge figures in parentheses next to the figure, sort of like the city box does for the census year.

• Also, can you enable state/region/district/city etc. fields out further than 4 or wherever they currently are? I've got a lot of rivers where I need to indicate more counties, and look at Mississippi River ... it needs to show all the states currently in the box. Daniel Case 23:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geobox coor in Infobox City

Hi Caroig,
Do you think that you could make the change to {{Infobox City}} that you were proposing on its talk page? You can do the change at {{Infobox City/Test}} first to show comparison for people on the talk page. Thanks —MJCdetroit 17:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it. —MJCdetroit 03:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hello. I have one suggestion. Would it be possible to add to the Geobox Region code a second subdivisions rolling field? Several subdivisions (e.g. Polish voivodeships) consist of subdivisions of two types. Hope you will understand my request. I could write it better in Czech :). p.s. That would also allow CS Regions geobox to have "districts" and "little districts" there. - Darwinek 18:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you understood it good. E.g. in the case of Poland there are fields for counties and municipalities. Every voivodeship has several counties and several hundred municipalities, I don't want to list them but giving only a number of these would be fine. Also in other cases, like the Czech regions, they could be listed, because there are only a several okres and maly okres ones in each region. - Darwinek 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map Centering in Geobox Town

We have a map image with the dot already placed on it. If the image is scaled to fit the entire box, as it is now, it seems too large. With Infobox City, a size of 150px was specified, but if I specify a size of 150px with Geobox Town, the map image is left aligned, rather than centered. This occurs in all the browsers I've tested (on Windows XP SP2)

• Firefox 1.5.0.10
• Internet Explorer 7.0.5730.11
• Opera 9.10

David H. Flint 20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your change, thanks. I didn't realize that the "px" wasn't neccessary, though looking now it is documented. It seems odd that adding the "px" causes the image to be scaled properly but alters the alignment. Also, experimenting, if I use a size of "80%" it treats it as 80 pixels, but also left aligns it. I presume that there is no way to scale based on a percentage, not that I am sure that such functionality is necessary. Sorry for scaring you, :-). Great work on the template! David H. Flint 20:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monongahela River/Sanbox [sic]

I've deleted this page; it falls under speedy deletion criterion G2, a test page. Generally, subpages are not accepted within article space. (There are occasional exceptions, such as temporary pages when an article has copyright concerns.) If you'd like a copy of the deleted page, let me know, and I'll put one in your user space, where sandboxes are allowed. Thanks. Shimeru 02:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locator Dot.svg

Caroig, did you make any changes to the Geobox or its associated pages in the last 24 hours? Something happened to the locator maps and the dot is not appearing. I thought it might be a problem with the file Image:Locator_Dot.svg, as {{Infobox Protected area}} was edited to use Image:Red pog.svg to correct the problem. However, I could not find anything. Thanks. VerruckteDan 14:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this post. If you look at the article on Odense, the dot is actually there and in the right location, but it looks like the image of the dot is now located below the map image, making the dot invisible except as a link. Valentinian ^T / C 21:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geobox Lake

Is it possible to make minor modifications to Geobox River to create Geobox Lake? Kgrr 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Hi Caroig, I converted Larrys Creek to Geobox River and have some questions / comments on it at Template talk:Geobox River. Thanks for a cool and very versatile Geobox! Ruhrfisch 20:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Template Barnstar
		Awarded to Caroig for creating the Geobox series. Ruhrfisch 02:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Czech Wikipedian's notice board

You are invited to join Wikipedia:Czech Wikipedian's notice board! The Czech notice board can be used for discussions on Czech-related topics; to plan your Czech-related projects; and ask for, or offer assistance for Czech-related subjects. Editors are encouraged to sign their nickname on the list of active participators. --Thus Spake Anittas 02:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Well, that's your problem. Gorale are distinct people living in the mountains, although only on the small part of it. Their distinct culture shaped the character of the mountains there, come and you'll see. You are free to introduce other aspects to the article, what I advise you to do, instead of accusing me of nationalism. Indeed, it seems like you are trying to whitewash important aspects of the matter. - Darwinek 21:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I have added a portion of information in which I am interested, you should add yours. Maybe I should take some photos of historical wooden houses there? Cieszyn Silesia is a historical region but still is variously used, like Slovácko. It is acknowledged by the European Union which created Euroregion Cieszyn Silesia. I see no problem with having this information there, just expand with information about other parts of the mountains. You are right it would be better to add some human geography, cultural information. I agree with that but this move requires more of my time which I currently doesn't have so much. So maybe in future. - Darwinek 07:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandboxes belong in user space

I have moved your page Liberec Region/Sandbox to User:Caroig/Liberec Region/Sandbox. Sandbox pages do not belong in the main article namespace. Subpages denoted by slashes are disabled in the article namespace, making the page you created accessable via "random article". The only pages that belong in the main namespace are actual articles. To discuss or try out changes to an article, please comment on the article's talk page, create a subpage in your own user space, or use the wikipedia sandbox. Thanks, — Swpb ^talk contribs 21:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mendip Hills (again)

Following your previous help with the geobox section of this article can I ask for some more help? Mendip Hills is up as a FA candidate (again) at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mendip Hills & hasn't got enough support yet & is likely to run out of time soon. Could you take a look & add any comments. Specifically a reviewer has commented "Infobox -> Location -> Coordinates: 1:10,000 doesn't seem an appropriate scale for an area of this size. I'd change it myself, but I'm not familiar with the template parameters. 1:100,000 is probably more like it" is it possible to change this? Thanks — Rod ^talk 10:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - could you kindly add something to say it was done (& how) to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mendip Hills - it's in the section saying Conditional support. — Rod ^talk 08:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template duplication

Your "geobox" templates appear to duplicate other templates - Geobox building duplicates infobox building, for example The existing templates generally have, or can have, a coordinates field, making use of {{coord}} for coordinates. Why are you developing these other templates? Please discuss such work, on the talk page of the existing template. Thank you. Andy Mabbett

The reasons why I started Geoboxes are here: Category:Geobox#Why_were_these_geoboxes_created.3F. They are still based on the older coordinates template as I haven't had time to implement the new one. Last time I checked {{coord}} was still marked as under development, besides I haven't had that much time for Wikipedia recently, this apply to Geobox Building as well. – Caroig (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{coord}} is not "still under development", it's already used by tens of thousands of articles and dozens of infoboxes, both directly and indirectly. I suggest that you discuss your plans much more widely before you proceed further. Andy Mabbett 18:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not fully understand your objections. Nobody's forced to use the Geoboxes, they exist as an alternative and it's up to the users which templates they prefer, the Geoboxes have quite a lot of advantages over many existing infoboxes, please see Category:Geobox#Why_were_these_geoboxes_created.3F. I said the last time I checked it had been under development (dunno when it was), furthermore there were some objections concerning broken parsing for Google Maps. Maybe thes issues have been solved. Yet I still fail to see the problem. The old system works as well, when I find some time, I'll look into it. – Caroig (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you're duplicating a lot of preceding effort, with no regard to additional features and functionality built in to the templates you're replicating. It's not sensible to confuse editors with alternatives design for the same purpose, nor to have half our articles marked up in one way, and half the other, with no coordination and no compatibility. I'm not asking you to give up your ideas; I'm asking you to consult on them first. Andy Mabbett 18:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main purpose of the Geoboxes is to have a unified system of Geography related articles. Nothing like that exists. There is a plethora of infoboxes even for the same feature (take the many infoboxes for cities, specific to every country). There are quite extensive discussions in many Geoboxes (e.g .{{Geobox River}}) where their features were discussed in large. The Geoboxes aim to create an easy to use, because coherent system. The existing Geoboxes have differently named parameters, layout, some provide automatic unit conversion, some don't … And as of {{coord}}, it didn't exist when I created the geobox system. – Caroig (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected areas of Slovakia

Hi, regarding the names, see my talk page. Anyway, I want to ask you to make maps similar to the one in the Veľká Fatra National Park article for other national parks of Slovakia. You can find all the current maps of those parks in high resolution at www.sopsr.sk.--Svetovid 21:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technicaly it's not a big problem, the time is. I have all the necassary resources. – Caroig (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page.--Svetovid 21:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again :)--Svetovid 11:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep coming. And please add some evidence that "Greater Fatra" is preferred over "Velka Fatra" in English speaking media and among native speakers and academia, because otherwise there is no need for further discussion.--Svetovid 18:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know, it will have been a week tomorrow since I asked for some evidence. Since you haven't offered any, I'll be renaming all instances of Great Fatra into Veľká Fatra.--Svetovid 13:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Greater Fatra. If you fail to provide evidence for your claims (again), I'll change the names.--Svetovid 13:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you failed to provide any sources and find support among other editors again, I'll rename the article and edit articles containing the translated names tomorrow. Should you find any sources to support your claim, please report them at Talk:Greater Fatra.--Svetovid 20:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. You haven't replied to my comment for 13-14 days now. You are still the only one stubbornly blocking the name change so what do you suggest? A poll?--Svetovid 10:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rokycany/Geobox

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

this should be a part of the article, not a separate page

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Rokycany/Geobox, 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. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Rokycany/Geobox itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

I've replied to your post at Template talk:Geobox coor, asking for an update, please. Andy Mabbett 11:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've noticed but I'm just too busy these days. This is the first weekend in a few months when I might find some time for Wikipedia so I'll try and look at it. – Caroig (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caroig, the edits you did on June 16 to Template:Geobox coor may have created a bug. If coordinates are entered in decimal form in the Geobox, they are appearing on the left side where the text of the article should start instead of the upper right title area. See Springfield, Illinois for an example of what I'm talking about. The problem does not occur when coordinates are entered in DMS format. Thanks for looking into this. VerruckteDan 14:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be OK now. See the talk page at the infobox. – Caroig (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RM of Slovak Ore Mountains and Lesser Fatra

You recently participated in a requested move discussion at Talk:Greater Fatra and might be interested a similar situation at Talk:Slovak Ore Mountains and Talk:Lesser Fatra. These articles were previously moved to their Slovak names but I have reverted the moves and posted them at WP:RM to allow for discussion. —  AjaxSmack  05:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]