Template talk:Infobox lighthouse

lighthouse pushpin misplaced

Thank y'all for your work on the technical side, but there's a UI problem.

It's fine if a viewer already knows the correct placement of the lighthouse and therefore understands that the icon is marking its bottom-right corner, but that's non-intuitive. Is it impossible to correctly position the icon so that the GPS point being marked is at the intuitive location at the center of its base? If that's impossible, the icon is cute but so misleading it should really be removed and replaced with one of the accurately-placed dots.

See, e.g., the difference between these two revisions of an article on a North Korean headland whose original GPS image was replaced by this template. The "lighthouse" pushpin not only makes it appear that the lighthouse is located miles inland but that the cape being referenced is an entirely different one from the truth. The "dot" pushpin, however, is completely accurate. — LlywelynII 23:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Llywelyn, I centered the base of the lighthouse in a derivative version of the icon on commons. so, the base should be correctly centered now. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate Wikidata junk

The article Smith Island Light contains two instances of Infobox lighthouse—one for the eponymous lighthouse and one for the Skunk Bay Memorial Lighthouse, to which part of the Smith Island Light was moved before its destruction (and about which we lack an article). The latter one is, however, picking up from Wikidata an image and some information that applies not to the Skunk Bay Memorial Lighthouse but to the Smith Island Light. Is there some way of getting this template to ignore the stuff on Wikidata when it's inapplicable? Or is the only solution to just delete the second template? Deor (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Deor: I've tried solving this by adding |fetchwikidata= (no value) and removing the Wikidata link in the template if the aforementioned parameter is empty. The template documentation should mention this. Jc86035 (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Jc86035. Deor (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox not rendering properly, hiding entered data.

Would someone please have a look at this article for me to see why the Infobox Lighthouse is not rendering properly, and so is hiding some of the entered data. The image won't display either. I think most of this was rendering properly earlier today, at least the image was: Grandique Point Lighthouse

In comparison, this lighthouse article I did a few years ago is displaying the Infobox Lighthouse correctly.: Low Point Lighthouse I may be doing something wrong but I can't see what it is. Thank you. Ken Heaton (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that's weird, the infobox for Grandique Point Lighthouse displays correctly today.Ken Heaton (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Mapframe maps?

{{Infobox building}} and {{Infobox shopping mall}} have both recently been updated to automatically show dynamic mapframe maps by default. I am proposing to similarly show such maps by default for this template, with the same optional parameters to adjust the size, frame center point, initial zoom level, and marker icon; and to similarly allow the mapframe map to be turned off using |mapframe=no. See Template:Infobox building#Mapframe maps and Template talk:Infobox building#Change to the map parameter so Kartographer works for further information. (FYI: I'm making similar proposal for other buildings infobox templates) - Evad37 [talk] 15:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Support, I agree about this update. angys (Talk Talk) 11:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Evad37 [talk] 01:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove deprecated parameter; adjust labeltext

1. Parameter |elevation= is deprecated (since 2008). Per October 1st, 173 articles used it [1]. I have replaced all instances |elevation= with the appropriate |focusheight=, with an extra visual check on whether the "elevation" actually meant focal height (check with tower height). Parameter |elevation= is no more needed. I propose removing it from the template (into "non existing parameter", i.e. reported unkown when used). When present, I removed parameter input text "Focal plane: ..." from these, as this is clear from lefthand labeltext so don't repeat in righthand side.

2. Parameter |height= is intended for construction height (tower height). To avoid confusion, I propose to make change the label (lefthand text) fror thid parameter: from "Height" into "Tower height". Did remove "Tower: .." text from input parameter (should not be in righthand side).

Both changes are in {{Infobox lighthouse/sandbox}} diff, as proposal. Comments? - DePiep (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 October 2018

Please replace all code with the code from {{Infobox lighthouse/sandbox}}. Changes: 1. Parameter |elevation= removed (was deprecated for 10 years, not used in articles). 2. Write lefthand label "Tower height" to disambiguatie from "elevation height". Proposed here 2 weeks ago, with no comments. DePiep (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've removed elevation from the list of known parameters as a first step. I'd rather wait 'til the report you referenced above refreshes in a couple of days before going the whole way. Which isn't to say there aren't folks who may feel bolder than I do, and who feel like doing the whole request right now. Cabayi (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

..or wait a few hours for any changes to show up in Category:Pages using infobox lighthouse with unknown parameters of course. Cabayi (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

(ec) No, that was not what is requested, and incorrect at that. Had you done the full edit as requested, any offending articles would show up in the maintenance category for correction -- no problem. And you omitted the second part completely, even not mentioning here. -DePiep (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"that was not what is requested"? Reverted myself. Cabayi (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

re: wait a few hours: yes, that is the process anyway. -DePiep (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Cabayi Anything wrong with the request? What are you trying to say? Is asked for an update, and you cannot think about rewarding that request as is? -DePiep (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

DePiep I'm not inclined to remove a parameter without first checking that it's not in use. You objected and said that it wasn't what you'd requested, so I reinstated the previous version. Cabayi (talk) 20:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

As you could undertand from the previous section, I already have worked on that check. Also, you yourself noted that any remaining issue would be categorised, andf so the covering would work out all right. I find it strange that you throw away the process & work I described, and started all over (showing a distrust in my work, while not being able to point out any errors). On top of this, you totally skipped the "Tower height" my change had, unexplained.

All in all, your intervention does not follow from WP:EDITREQ. I request that you or some other editor perform the edit as proposed. -DePiep (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)