Template talk:Location box

PanSola, I love this $#%$ing box. It is excellent. I'm planning on writing up an S&F guide for locations and this is so going in there. (Woah, flashback to high school days in So Cal.) =)  --Rainith 22:27, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Hehe - 22:55, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm going to change Part of to Region in the box. It makes more sense to me.  If you disagree, just change it back.  :)  --Rainith 21:38, 17 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Location box is used for Regions and Continents also, so "Region" doesn't make sense. - 21:43, 17 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Ah, I was not aware of that. Is there a better term for it then "Part of" then?  That just doesn't sit well with me.  --Rainith 21:45, 17 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree, and I would like to come up with a better term too. - 21:59, 17 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Can we say "Within"? i.e. "Within: Tyria" or "Within: The Shiverpeak Mountain Range"?  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 06:06, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

Suggestion: map section
I have spent some time adding this template thougout the explorable areas of Tyria since I like the improved vertical and horizontal navigation it features. When adding I was often caught between the options of using either a panorama screenshot or an map of the area as the given image option. I usually chose the picture since it looked better. Which left me with the map, which I usually included as thumbnail right below the box.

Unsatisfied with that, I was wondering if it would be possible to enhance the template such that another section labled "Map" would be added if an option named map is set to some image to display (such as  map= ) while no such section should be added if the map option would be absent or blank (map=).

See the box to the right for an example of what I mean.

While I know how to add a section with an image I dont know how it can be achieved that the whole section vanishes if no map is needed. If someone knows how to do this I would appreciate if such a feature could be added. --MRA 14:00, 20 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I would advocate always using the map for explorable areas. It's simply a more objectively neutral picture to use.  If you use a panorama screenshot, some other contributor might think he has a much better panorama screenshot of a different scene in the area than yours, and want to replace yours, and perhaps you agree his is better, but this other guy think YOURs is better etc etc.  With maps, it's more clear-cut as to which map is better (clarity etc).  It'd be simpler if everyone's good panorama shots can co-exist outside the location box, as opposed to trying to pick which one has the special honor of being featured in the location box.  For town and outposts the objectively neutral picture to use would be the pic that shows up when you click on its world map icon.
 * The only way to make the section vanish includes either the use of parser functions, or some tricky parameter calls to the template. I don't remember the syntax for parser functions of the top of my head, but a few templates use it so you can take a look, such as Template:Skill box I think. - 15:30, 20 September 2006 (CDT)


 * As PanSola says, I'm not certain if it would be best to use the map as default, as opposed to a screenshot of the location, but I have modified the template anyway, so is now a valid optional parameter.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 16:18, 20 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I have started using this new feature on a couple of locations, however most explorable areas do not have an image just a map, so i have been using the map in the image slot as there is no option for that, perhaps the image slot should be made optional too, then you could put the map in the correct position?? --Lemming64 18:11, 21 September 2006 (CDT)
 * In fact the current desctiption for this template is misleading as the image parameter whilst not required, if there is no image under the page name it just leaves an ugly red text label. Though I suppose if you left this out this does give the user the option to upload one if he sees a missing one. Any thoughts?--Lemming64 18:14, 21 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't see any harm in having both a map and an image for locations, but I think it's a grey area. I would say that if there's a map and no image, put the map in the image field. Equally if there's an image and no map, leave the map field blank. If there's both, fill both in.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 18:49, 21 September 2006 (CDT)


 * The red text is exactly for that reason, so ppl can upload if they have an image available. I still advocate ALWAYS use the map for explorable areas, and NEVER use panorama screenshots for other types of places unless you can construct a good argument of WHY that shot should be the objectively definitive picture to represent that location (such as the world map image for towns/outposts). - 11:33, 22 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't really think there has to be an 'objective image'. Do wikipedia have this much fuss over images in articles? Well... possibly :P but I really don't think having a picture of a location is a problem.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:35, 23 October 2006 (CDT)


 * The reason why I like the panorama pics is not that I want to restrict the area to one particular view of the location, but rather want to show the general theme of the area, i.e. climate, flora, lighting, color of the sky, etc. To achieve that, any half-decent picture will suffice. Nevertheless, whenever taking a picture I tried to use a prominent and distinctive spot, if possible. If someone else finds the picture inapt and links another one, I personally don't care. I don't see that much potential for a picture edit war in this. --MRA 17:12, 23 October 2006 (CDT)