File talk:USA Utah location map.svg

At the FAC for en:Thistle, Utah on the english language wikipedia,(en:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thistle, Utah/archive2) a request has been made to modify the image File:USA Utah location map.svg to have an inset to show context, similar to this image File:US_30_(IA)_map.svg. This would affect about 200 articles per each language wikipedia, most of them articles on cities in Utah. I agree with the proposed change, are there any objections here? Dave (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are. And I definitely disagree with you asking here and then changing the map only 12 hours later without giving anybody a chance to answer.

None of the other US state location maps have this inserted US map and it won't be done just for one map. It is planned to introduce an exchangeable location map like the French WP already has where you can change the map from the country map to a state map (e.g. fr:Navajo (montagne)). Then a) any inset is redundant, b) any changes in boundaries have to be done only once and not in dozens of maps and c) it is much more elegant. It is ridiculous to change this concept which was made by many users across several WP projects just because of one discussion for a FAC and that without any discussion. If you want an inset although the exchangeable map isn't introduced to en:WP you easily could adopt the solution of en:Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction. This infobox takes the state location maps like en:Template:Location map India Maharashtra and puts an inset automatically over it, e.g. at en:Mumbai. That is a good solution without running contrary to the exchangeable location map concept. NNW (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I advertised this change at other venues, and did wait for some comments before changing. It's a low risk change, as such I didn't feel the need to wait a week. The comments at other venues have so far been supportive. The most active venue so far is en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Utah. That's probably where future comments should be posted, in the interest of a centralized discussion.

While the Infobox Indian Jurisdiction is an interesting idea, I don't see how it could be automated. For example, that template places the inset in the upper left corner, however that is not practical for all maps. In the case of Utah, any inset would almost always be placed in the upper right corner. Perhaps a manual override could be made for those cases. I see the french infobox as "cute" but not useful, especially as this solution does not work for a printed or exported copy. As such, I still feel this is the best and easiest solution. However, I agree that more discussion would be helpful, I would request that future discussion take place at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Utah. Dave (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know you didn't ask those who made all these location maps. You can imagine they weren't made without a plan. Infobox Indian Jurisdiction places the inset where there is space for it, compare en:Mumbai and en:Kolkata. But no template will work when an article gets exported. NNW (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)