Template talk:Adjacent communities

Is this template useful?[edit]

I am sure this template took effort to make but is it really adding anything useful. A simple map would tell you what cities are next door using less space with a higher degree of accuracy. And if the argument that is a navigation panel then it belongs at the bottom of articles using a third the space it currently occupies. -MarsRover (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree with the assessment. Yes, a map would certainly be beneficial, but the reality is that we do not have the resources to produce almost seven thousand maps tailored to individual articles, compete with the article linking capability this template offers. Is this solution perfect? No, certainly not - but it does allow us to add a useful location service within our "budget" (as it were). --Ckatzchatspy 23:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, I think a flat list of neighboring locations would suffice. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
A variety of similar templates were created, larger and smaller; this one seems to have gained more mainstream support and usage, so let's keep it for now; as stated before, maps with wikilinks are rare; if you want to propose modifications, and have a specific layout in mind, please create it in a sandbox and let us look at it. --Qyd (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I find this template to be useful on stubs, but on well developed articles this information should already be there. It is cluttering and unhelpful on the U.S. state articles that it currently transcludes on. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I do agree that it is misleading and unnecessary for the vast majority of locations. There has been discussion about its utility here. BushelCandle (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Compatible with infobox?[edit]

Please look as Newton Regis where there is a large amount of white space, as this template waits until infobox has finished before drawing itself. Though I agree with those who would abolish this template completely, is there anything that can be done to improve its presentation? Jan1naD (talkcontrib) 16:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it the template, or the images included in the template? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I think I see what you mean, you are wondering about the fact that this is a relatively wide box, and there is a large gap if your browser window isn't wide enough, due to the long infobox? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and no. The location box width is not static. It spreads out as the browser window increases, so as to always come after the infobox. Jan1naD (talkcontrib) 10:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I see you've moved the box to the end of the article to try and make it look better. You left the heading behind, so I've tidied those. However, we need a more generatal solution if indeed this template is used in 6800 pages (it says here). Jan1naD (talkcontrib) 10:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
It is based on the navbox class, which has a clear break at the top (on purpose, it is intended to do this, as it is supposed to be placed at the bottom of articles). You can bypass this by including the entire template in a fixed width div.(example)--Qyd (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I have undone your change to Newton Regis as it does not solve the problem - the box is narrow enough, but still floats below the infobox, regardless (Firefox 3.5.6). And, in my opinion, setting a fixed width, even if it did work, would only solve it for those users whose browser window is within a particular range of sizes. I feel this template is more of a hindrance than a help, and should be deprecated, or else only ever used as part of the navbox stack. Jan1naD (talkcontrib) 21:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this template should only be used at the foot of the article, along with any other wide navigation boxes. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It is a navbox, but provides some information about the subject itself, and I would argue for this reason, as well as aesthetics, should come on top of any navbox stack. Rich Farmbrough, 12:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC).


{{editprotect}} TFD nom as per Presents a over simplified view of geographic details i.e has no support for town x which is north north west of centre town y with out giving a real context of the towns surroundings. Information better presented in the the article or using a map Gnevin (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

plus Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} Withdrawn as per WP:Snow Gnevin (talk) 09:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

minus Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox sync[edit]


Please sync with the sandbox to remove the links from the arrow icons; they are purely decorative, and clicking them leads to an unexpected result (one might expect to move to a different location article; instead it leads to the icon's image page). Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Replace "(enter city)" with PAGENAME[edit]

Any reason not to? Rich Farmbrough, 12:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

Good suggestion from the perspective of efficiency and ease-of-use, but in practice it would not always work properly because of the way articles are named. We would end up with provinces or states being displayed where they aren't needed, not to mention the articles that have descriptors in parentheses such as "(district municipality)". --Ckatzchatspy 21:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Hm I would hope that people would have the intelligence to fix those. Rich Farmbrough, 19:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC).
Fixable, yes, but would people do it? I guess it is a toss-up between having the "enter city" text or having the other. I suppose we could try it out and see what happens. --Ckatzchatspy 04:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Where to be placed?[edit]

What's the general consensus, if any, about where this article should normally be located in an article? I have normally seen it in the External links section, although I have also come across it in See also and in Geography sections. Is there any guidance on where it should, or more importantly, shouldn't be placed? TIA Atlas-maker (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

from what I have seen the use of this template can be mildly controversial. placing it near the bottom of the article, above the navigational boxes, seems to be the least visually disruptive. Frietjes (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd agree, however I have done some more research since I asked the question and it seems that the Canadian Settlements guidance suggests just that, but WP:UKCITIES prescribes it's use in a 'Geography section. Personally I think there should be global consistency on this. Atlas-maker (talk) 06:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I also find it best suitable above the navigation boxes, since in some sense it is a navigation box. Consistency would, of course, be good, especially if there are multiple different uses at the time. CRwikiCA talk 13:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

I had used the geography template in the article Fort McKay First Nation but it was removed. The editor argued that "[t]he "geography 8-way template is for communities, not First Nation governments." I have seen it used in other articles about First Nation's communities. It is very useful since the FN's have jurisdiction over areas of land that are not easily defined by a pinpoint or a coordinate. These communities are often remote communities and their stories are inextricably linked to geography and by extension ecology, geology. Knowing their geography is crucial in understanding archaeology and pre-contact and post-contact history. For example almost every FN community has direct ties to in regards to land use of specific lakes, rivers etc for traditional fishing, hunting and gathering. oceanflynn 17:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to contact me directly if you disagree with an edit summary or require elaboration on the same. I encourage it.

Fort McKay First Nation is a First Nations government comprising five separate communities (Indian reserves) that are geographically separate from one another. Some are proximate, others are distant in comparison. In my observation, this template has been utilized for Indian reserves/communities and not First Nations governments that comprise multiple unique reserves/communities. I suggest the template be utilized on First Nation government sub-articles for the separate reserves themselves. The problem with using it to cover a group of communities is which one is the reference point? What happens if there is a separate community, independent of the FN, that is located between two of the FN's constituent communities.

An example of this would be the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation and its constituent reserves Alexis Indian Reserve 133, Alexis Cardinal River Indian Reserve 234, Alexis Elk River Indian Reserve 233 and Alexis Whitecourt Indian Reserve 232. There are over 10,000 km2 (3,900 sq mi) between the four reserves, with a number of towns, villages, hamlets, etc. within this area. What would be the central reference point to use the template on the FN article? Any central reference point would be WP:OR and would be in a different jurisdiction.

Hope this makes sense. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Geographical features[edit]

Besides italics, would it be too much to have waterway link text displayed in blue text and/or with watermarks, such as ~~ Saint Lawrence River ~~ ? Thanks. Gordalmighty (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

There are two questions at play then: 1) Is it any clearer and 2) would that even be MoS compliant. I do not think it would be clearer, because the standard link text is blue already, introducing a second shade of blue might make it more confusing. With regard to the tildes, I am not sure it would be immediately clear (this would be the only such use of them on Wikipedia as far as I can see). The idea of having another identifying mark for waterbodies besides italics has some merit, but writing the word River, Lake, Sea explicitly might do the trick already. CRwikiCA talk 13:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Gord for bringing this to a centralized discussion. Basically the same considerations as CRwikiCA: By creating blue text, it is no longer visible if the text is linked or not. The tildes are not a universal symbol for water (so it doesn't add any meaning) and makes the text string needlessly longer (likely creating ugly spill-over text where a place is surrounded by water). Other geographical features may also be used in this template (see for example Camalig, Albay); what symbol is to be used for them? IMO, this is superfluous and there is no need to further differentiate geographical features. The document page says to "avoid cluttering the template with too much detail; it is a general guide, not a detailed map". -- P 1 9 9   13:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. Italics alone it is! Gordalmighty (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
As of 2017 consensus (and pretty much the only reason this template was not deleted as a nuisance), it's scope is limited to communities, so it should not be showing waterways at all. SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ< 02:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Italics type is confusing and doesn't make sense to the average reader. A simple geographical title is sufficient. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, there is no consensus on this. As it is, geographic features are already used sparingly (and consistently where there are no adjacent jurisdictions, like a major lake or sea). The fact that they are used requires explanation in the doc, which actually reduces confusion if properly explained. -- P 1 9 9   19:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Mobile site[edit]

This template does not seem to appear when on the mobile version Wikipedia?--الدبوني (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

correct, just like template:navbox and template:sidebar and other navigational templates. Frietjes (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 March 2017 (parameters with hyphen like south-east)[edit]

I recently saw that in some places the parameters where wrongly used: south-east (with hyphen) instead of Southeast (and the three other hyphened variants for NE, NW, SW). So either these variants could be added to the template or a bot has to be called to change these hyphened occurrences. katpatuka (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Done – Train2104 (t • c) 17:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2017-8-8[edit]

Please adopt the current sandbox version, which matches the standard navbox and is collapsible. Not sure if these changes should be done in the middle of a deletion discussion, but many of the complaints have been about the template's looks. This may address some of those concerns. -- P 1 9 9   02:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Done GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 18:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Code updated[edit]

I updated the code to use {{navbox}} to generate the outer container, which allows embedding in other navboxes. let me know if there are any problems. Frietjes (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request 24 August 2017[edit]

Replace this line of code:

| title = {{#if:{{}}|{{}}|Adjacent places of {}}}

with this:

| title = {{#if:{{}}|{{}}|Places adjacent to {}}}

The new wording I am suggesting is much less awkward. CJK09 (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

changed. Frietjes (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Arrow sizes[edit]

The previous version of this template specified 17 width for all four arrows. This resulted in 17w×20h up and down arrows, and 17w×14h left and right arrows.

My recent edit reduced the up and down arrows to 14w×17h to match the left and right arrows in size. Alternatively, the left and right arrows could be enlarged to 20w×17h. Let me know if that's preferable. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks! IMO, the current smaller size is preferable, more suitable with the small text. -- P 1 9 9   13:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 October 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Template:Adjacent communities. It is template protected, so I will list it at WP:RM/TR for an admin to implement. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Geographic locationTemplate:Adjacent locations Template:Adjacent communities – Template is confusingly named and should match its actual content. Abuse of this navbox as a mid-article crude map (which has inspired repeated attempts to delete the template completely, with about a 50/50 delete vs. keep result) appears to be the direct result of the name of the template, which suggests it is for identifying the location of the subject, rather than the actually intended use, which is navigation to articles on neighboring communities along the eight primary and secondary compass points. SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ< 00:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Support – the proposed name is much more descriptive. I would go a step further and rename it to Template:Adjacent communities, since the template documentation says (t)he template provides for a convenient compass-based navigational aid for articles about communities. It allows you to display the communities surrounding the subject of your article. Mojoworker (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    Good point; I'd forgotten that was updated, based on a large amount of the "delete this template" !votes being about misuse of it to create a terrible pseudo-map of countries' geographical relationships that rarely bore much resemblance to reality. SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ< 02:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Define "Communities"[edit]

Can you please define the word "communities"? I know this would apply to cities and/or towns...entities that have legal boundaries that are commonly accepted by all parties. But...

What about neighborhoods -- areas that don't have a legal definition and have multiple interpretations? As an example: The City of Los Angeles considers "Baldwin Hills" and "Crenshaw" to be separate and adjacent communities. But the Los Angeles Times newspaper's mapping project combined them both into one neighborhood called "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw".

If neighborhoods could be used in the template, whose definition of the neighborhood would prevail: The City of Los Angeles or Los Angeles Times newspaper's mapping project? Or Google Maps, since they often have different boundaries. Or Thomas Brothers maps, which often list neighborhoods that don't even have Wikipedia pages?

I could not find a definition of "communities' clearly spelled out on the template page and hoping that can be clearly stated. Phatblackmama (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Since we have articles on both in your example, you could link to both. Be bold in editing and then if someone has a disagreement, discuss. Or you could post to the article talk before doing anything. I think it is going to vary depending on context and intent. Killiondude (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
In the example given above, Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw is a neighborhood while Crenshaw is a commercial district along the eponymous street as defined by the city. Some residents identify more with the district than with the specific name the city uses for their neighborhood. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish could you weigh in on this...in a previous discussion on this subject, you referenced the RfC on this template....looking for guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phatblackmama (talkcontribs) 21:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
This template is for towns and cities, and (to my chagrin) also permitting natural features like oceans and mountain ranges if there's no adjacent community in that direction. It wasn't meant for neighborhoods; rather, that wasn't a contemplated use. I could see using it for neighborhoods, maybe, but only in an article on a neighborhood. I.e., if the context is cities and towns, keep it at that level, or readers will just be confused into thinking that, e.g., there's a California city named "Tenderloin". As for how to define a neighborhood (see stuff above), hell if I know. I guess, whatever we have an article or section on. Frankly, I hate this template and was bummed it did not get deleted at TfD. It was kept on the basis of its use being constrained. So using it for 'hoods is going to increase the chances of it going back to TfD. SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 05:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Why ask the advice from someone who hates this template and doesn't want to use it? Rather, ask someone who has applied this template 1000s of times in a consistent way and even wrote the guidelines.
Back to the original question of how to define neighborhoods. That has really nothing to do with this template. Its purpose is not to define communities (in fact, the template was only fairly recently renamed to "Adjacent communities", and a better name would have been "Adjacent jurisdictions"). I have seen this template used for neighborhoods for some cities, and there seems to be no issues. Remember, it is not a map, just a navigational aid. That should be your guide as to what links to include. And what really matters is that it is applied consistently. -- P 1 9 9   15:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Renaming it "adjacent jurisdictions" works for me. Feel free to open a WP:RM to that effect. "Community" is a misused, confused term (there's a split proposal open on its talk page), and "jurisdictions" would be much clearer.
On the other matters: Template documentation isn't "guidelines"; see WP:P&G for what that term means here. Disagreeing with the rationale for deployment of the template in the first place (mostly based on observation of how frequently it's abused, e.g. injecting the navbox into the middle of an article) doesn't mean I'm somehow incapable of applying logic to its deployment if, after all, consensus agrees it's okay to deploy it within limits. Ability to separate practicalities from subjective opinion borders [pun intended] on being a WP:CIR matter. :-) SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 19:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Geographic Boxes[edit]

Hi. I would appreciate your cooperation in retaining the geographic boxes in the logical place where they belong; that is, under Geography. They are not WP:Navboxes as much as they are indicators of where the communities exist in relation to others. Thanks very much. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding this edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arlington_Heights%2C_Los_Angeles&type=revision&diff=791358573&oldid=768904591, I think you should have gone to the Talk page there, or talked it over with me because it seems like you are targeting these infoboxes, all of which took me some time to create. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phatblackmama (talkcontribs)
You have been advised on multiple occasions that you are using this info box incorrectly. Phatblackmama (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I have not seen any such advice. Can you point it out to me? Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
If it's not on my talk page, there would have been no way for me to see it unless somebody had referred me to this page. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
You were “pinged” when notes were left on talk on the Sylmar talk page in August [1]. You were asked asked to join that particular discussion when the navbox was removed from Westwood, Los Angeles [2] All subsequent edit summaries have been clear and concise as to the mis-use of navboxes. Phatblackmama (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Note that there is NO policy that dictates the rules for this template's use. Its application is guided by common practice and/or local consensus of wikiprojects. -- P 1 9 9   13:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. Click the "template" tab at the top of this page and read how to use this template. It says: Placement in article - WP:LAYOUTNAV specifies that Navboxes, including geography boxes such as this one, are placed after the External links section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phatblackmama (talkcontribs) 16:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more specific: I was referring to rules for inclusion or not (i.e. which articles must have it, which don't, what to link to, etc.). It appears from the fact that they were entirely removed that there is a question as to whether or not it should be included. In any case, yes, this template should be after the ext. links. Regards, -- P 1 9 9   18:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
They most definitely are navboxes. The only reason they narrowly escaped deletion at TfD (again) was a clear consensus that they are navboxes and be treated as navboxes. To indicate geographical relationships in prose, e.g. under "Geography", do it in plain English sentences, like hundreds of thousands of articles do and always have done. SMcCandlish ¢ 😼 02:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Continuing discussion[edit]

It seems to be agreed in the main discussion above that this template can be used for neighborhoods within city articles but that it should be placed just after the "External links" section. Is this correct? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, correct (see for example the neighborhoods in Ottawa). But this is not an official policy, so it is always possible that consensus changes again... Regards, -- P 1 9 9   13:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@P 1 9 9...just to clarify for you, your example is not what the user is creating. Here is an example: Mid-City, Los Angeles#External links.
@ BeenAroundAWhile...I have changed the Mid-City NAV BOX to indicate the source: The Los Angeles Times boundaries.
However, My problem is WP:WEIGHT. The article cites both the "City of Los Angele"s boundaries for the neighborhood of Mid-City as well as those determined by the local newspaper, The Los Angeles Times. They are vastly different, yet represented equally by Wikipedia. That is correct -- Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view, and not promote one set over the other. A NAV BOX representing only one version of the neighborhood gives undue weight to one source.
Another example: Per the City of Los Angeles, Wilshire Park is adjacent to Koreatown. But per the Los Angeles Times mapping project, that neighborhood is part of Koreatown. In this specific instance, however, in 2010 the Los Angeles City Council looked at those expanding Koreatown further west (which would have included Wilshire Park) and rejected that proposal. [1].
Yet your template would promote the Los Angeles Times' boundaries over the City's established boundaries. Do you plan on making two templates: one that represents each source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phatblackmama (talkcontribs) 13:01, August 2, 2019 (UTC)
Often the problem with neighborhoods is that they are not officially defined or have vague boundaries. My recommendation would be to take the most authoritative source (often the city itself) and stick with that for consistency. I am sure that most readers would not appreciate the clutter of multiple navboxes for essentially the same thing (not to speak of confusing). Regards, -- P 1 9 9   19:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The different definitions of neighborhoods have different purposes. Koreatown is limited in the city definition only because some residents felt their voice would be lost in the larger community. These neighborhood councils are to present feedback to their councilmember and if they are too large, residents on the fringe do not feel like they are heard. Sources agree that Koreatown is bigger than the city definition. Mapping L.A. by the Los Angeles Times crowdsource after using their best judgement. Unlike the city designated neighborhoods, these could include portions of cities along with unincorporated areas. The one that should almost never be used is Google Maps as it is difficult or impossible to determine the veracity of past citations. It may be useful for some purposes though, including finding and verifying geographic coordinates and other basic information like street names. Therefore, Wikipedia articles can include and possibly explain this vagueness but not promote one set over the other. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@P 1 9 9 I agree with you. I would prefer that city established boundaries be used. Particularly here in Los Angeles, where blue signs with the city seal are posted on lamp posts and announce the name of each community. That is how people on the ground experience the city and its neighborhoods.
@Fettlemap. I disagree with almost everything you said. The city's process for determining a neighborhood is a democratic process in which citizens have a voice. With input from the citizens, the city determines boundaries and posts blue neighborhood signs throughout the city designating individual neighborhoods. As soon as you drive out of the city established area called Koreatown, you will see a blue sign with a city seal stating "Park Mile". Turn down Crenshaw Boulevard, and you will see a blue sign with a city seal saying "Wilshire Park." They are all separate neighborhoods, and the Los Angeles Times should report the boundaries, rather than create new ones. Here is a map profiled by LAist, Curbed, and other media outlets that actually maped LA's established neighborhoods - without attempting to create new ones. [2] [3]. But we can disagree about this forever....
That said, I do agree with your final statement...Wikipedia can not promote one set of boundaries over another. Phatblackmama (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


@Fettlemap, @P 1 9 9,@SMcCandlish@ BeenAroundAWhile

Please weight in. I don't want to misinterpret the discussion. It seems that consensus is: The NavBox for adjacent communities can be used for neighborhoods if placed in proper position at the bottom of the page, and does not favor any one set of neighborhood definitions and/or boundaries. In the case of Los Angeles, that means that any NAVBOX showing adjacent communities must incorporate both the the Los Angeles City and the Los Angeles Times boundaries. Is that correct?

I suggest that discussions regarding neighborhoods within individual cities be taken to the discussion page for that city, with due notice broadcast widely that such a discussion is going on. For Los Angeles, that might be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Los Angeles area task force. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Any discussion regarding use of this template should be directed this template’s talk page.Phatblackmama (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Instructions edit request[edit]

Please put instructions for all the optional parameters available in what is now the "Title option" section of the template instructions:

  • |state=[auto|collapsed|expanded]
  • |width=[auto|...px]
  • |title=[text]

Thanks Donama (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Donama: You can do so by clicking here. --Izno (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
All parameters are already discussed in the template doc. If you were looking for instructions when or where to use the state or width parameters, well these parameters are used very sparingly to suit the formats of a few specific pages (right now I can't recall any pages that uses these). -- P 1 9 9   19:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Compass Rose Option[edit]

Would like to be able to include a compass rose such as this...


How to do this? I would use NeighbouringCommunities but it doesn't appear to have state=expanded option.

FOUND IT, put this on the centre/center parameter {{}} Compass rose simple.svg

Thanks. CoatCheck (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 June 2019[edit]

Tucker County, WV does not border Garrett County, MD (see https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/GUBlock/st24_md/county/c24023_garrett/DC10BLK_C24023_014.pdf ). The template for Garrett County, MD is correct. I just fixed the "Adjacent Counties" section in the Wikipedia articles for both counties. Kevin Lamoreau (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Adjacent communities}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Izno (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay, done. Thanks. Kevin Lamoreau (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 August 2019[edit]

The geographic positions of the adjacent communities surrounding Calimesa, California are inaccurate and should be modified. I think the placement of the communities/surrounding features should look something like this:

If there is an editor out there who has a right to make these changes, please do so. Also, if you feel any other changes need to be made (like omitting San Jacinto or Cabazon as adjacent communities), feel free to do this as well. DISCLAIMER: Despite what the notice says at the top, I do not want to modify the master Adjacent Communities template, just the template for Calimesa, California, United States. Cheers, Pf1127 (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Please disregard this. I found the right section to only edit the template for Calimesa, California, and not the protected Adjacent Communities template.

 Not done: per request Izno (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 19 August 2019[edit]

NOTE: The County of Monterey and Kern County are NOT contiguous unless you count the occasional dust storm blowing through. There is a mile or so of Kings County that separates the two just referred to. Woilorio (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Woilorio, this talk page is for requesting changes to Template:Adjacent communities, if you want to change the adjacent counties listed in Kern County, California or Monterey County, California you should edit those articles directly. Frietjes (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 August 2019[edit]

Remove "Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw Mall" from template as inaccurate and not really a neighborhood. It is a commercial shopping center. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Somebody has fixed the template at Leimert Park, Los Angeles so it apparently cannot be edited directly. I don't see discussion anywhere as to why or how that was done. Confused, even though I have BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
BeenAroundAWhile you should edit Leimert Park, Los Angeles to fix the adjacent communities listed in Leimert Park, Los Angeles. Frietjes (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I mentioned before that the template cannot be edited directly, but I found a way to make a request here, below. I hope I am doing it right. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 November 2019[edit]

Remove "Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw Mall" from template as inaccurate and not really a neighborhood. It is a commercial shopping center. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Adjacent communities}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Izno (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@BeenAroundAWhile: The places that are shown in the template are added at each article itself, not here at the template. Go and edit Leimert Park, Los Angeles, scroll to the bottom, then you'll see {{Geographic location (that is one of the redirect names for this template) and the 8 cardinal directions, where you can add/edit/remove any place. -- P 1 9 9   13:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
this should help eliminate some of the confusion. Frietjes (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to all. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)