Template talk:Infobox building

Change record height parameter to be more specific

The Record Height parameter should be more specific, i.e. if the tower was the tallest freestanding building then it should say that. For example, the CN Tower and Ostankino Tower pages both link to successors that do not link back to them because the aforementioned pages are freestanding buildings (see Talk:CN Tower#Tallest in the world?). BlairMyhre (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Can anyone tell why the map in this article is wildly off?

Xscape Milton Keynes
Xscape Milton Keynes seen from across Secklow Gate
Interactive map of Xscape Milton Keynes
General information
Status	Completed
Location	Avebury Boulevard, Central Milton Keynes, Milton Keynes, England
Coordinates	52°02′29″N 0°44′57″W
Elevation	105 metres (344 ft)
Opened	2000
Client	X-Leisure
Height
Roof	44 metres (144 ft) (max)
Design and construction
Architecture firm	FaulknerBrowns

I'm baffled. At Xscape (building), the map shows a location that is about 100 miles north of reality. If I put the same infobox here (and in my sandbox), it is correct!!! If I edit the section (isolating it from its context in the article, I assume?), it is also wrong . If I remove the the coordinates from the other building in the article so that there is no risk of confusion, still wrong. If I deliberately change the coordinates to (say) 50.04137|N|, I get a location that is only(!) 25 miles west. What am I missing? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

(I should mention that I've just now set mapframe=off because it is better to have no map than one that is wildly off. If anyone wants to verify, just turn it back on: if you see Nottingham, you've got the (un)desired result.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Or see the version at this diff. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Regs, The Equalizer (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@The Equalizer: TYVM. What was it? I'm intrigued to know why it only failed in that article but I couldn't reproduce it elsewhere. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Did you see the map pre-fix, (link here Map) two shapes for both Xscapes were displayed so the 'centre' of the view was a point exactly in-between. On OSM both have the same Wikidata number but no type parameter so why they have been uploaded, dunno. As the infobox is for MK, I removed the call for the shapes so it reverts to the MK coordinates instead. The article covers the brand so it ideally could cover both, to tidy it all up the mapframe could go back to displaying the two and the OSM entries get the correct flag. Regs, The Equalizer (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I had guessed that might be it, but when I removed the coordinates for the Yorkshire Xscape, it made no difference.

Oh well, problem solved and I'm never likely to encounter it again, so I won't pursue it. Thanks again. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Mapframe expand button doesn't work

The mapframe expand button (top-right square in map) doesn't work. After logging out it works. Grimes2 (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I see you have a few wiki scripts and stylesheets, check whether if any are having an impact. Also have you disabled javascript in your preferences. The Equalizer (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

That hint solved my problem. Thanks. Grimes2 (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Map marker

Hi, please change this code

| image4      = {{#invoke:Infobox mapframe
  | auto
  | onByDefault = {{#if:{{{pushpin_map|}}}{{{map_type|}}}{{{image_map|}}}|no|yes}}
  | mapframe-frame-width = {{{mapframe-frame-width|250}}}
  | mapframe-wikidata = {{{mapframe-wikidata|yes}}}
}}

to this code

| image4      = {{#invoke:Infobox mapframe
  | auto
  | onByDefault = {{#if:{{{pushpin_map|}}}{{{map_type|}}}{{{image_map|}}}|no|yes}}
  | mapframe-frame-width = {{{mapframe-frame-width|250}}}
  | mapframe-wikidata = {{{mapframe-wikidata|yes}}}
  | mapframe-marker = {{{mapframe-marker|building}}}
}}

sandboxed here, to show marker of mapframe. Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 07:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done after looking at the testcases page. Always synchronize the /sandbox page with the live template before you make edits like this; I almost deleted a useful line in the live template when I copied your code. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Clarify use of "Status" parameter

The template instructions here seem to suggest two different purposes for the "status" parameter:

• Under the "Parameters" section, it says "useful to show the construction status of new buildings" and provides a list of suggested terms all related to construction status.
• In the preceding section, under "Example 2: embedded templates", the same parameter is instead used to describe the building's current function ("Used as a museum"), not its construction status.

Is one of these uses incorrect? Are they both acceptable uses of the same parameter? In either case, it would be helpful to clarify this for editors. R Prazeres (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Location parameters

Moved from User talk:Zackmann08 § Infobox Building

 – Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Zackmann08

Ref: Infobox Building

I notice you have changed the Location details to include all the adress details. Not really sure why you would do this.?

However, I also find there is an error. If the entry includes a location and an address, the location is now presented within the address.

For example, check out Hartlepool Lifeboat Station You will see that the location (The Boathouse) now appears with the address, and not before.

I'm not just about to undo your work, but I don't see why it needed to change, and how it is at present doesn't work.

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me (I'm sticking my nose in here because I had a similar case yesterday but didn't pursue as it was the wrong infobox that was being used in the first place) the underlying reason for the issue is that it is not at all clear why we have location and address. What's the difference? (A specific historic building on a University campus, perhaps? Or is it that someone assumed that "address" just means the street and not the full address?)

The error that Martin identifies seems to have been intentional? The doc page specifies

• Location {{{address}}}, {{{location}}}, {{{location_city}}}, {{{location_country}}}

so it is guaranteed to be nonsensical. But someone consciously specified it like that so there must be some non-obvious logic?

If we have to have both, then solution would seem to be that the infobox should have a separate line for each. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

My area of specialism is pages on lifeboat stations.

Quite often, the actual 'address' is only 'near' the station, with them being located on the beach, or a headland, or pier, etc.

So for me, its quite essential to have a 'location', as well as an address.

Martin Ojsyork (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to distract from Martin's main point so this is just to put down a marker that there is another issue that Zackmann08 needs to be aware of, that could get swept up in the same patch cycle: location-city duplicates the city in the address, which causes duplication when displayed (and if the address includes a postcode, it is a real mess). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@JMF and Ojsyork: not ignoring you all, have a lot going on right now and haven't had a chance to go down this rabbit hole... If you don't get a response from me by tomorrow, feel free to drop a message and remind me to return to this! -- Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@JMF and Ojsyork: Ok. So I FINALLY got a chance to look at this. For an immediate fix, I have reversed the order of {{{location}}} and {{{address}}} so the error at Hartlepool Lifeboat Station is resolved.

Ideally there would only be 1 parameter here... |location=. In the parameter you supply a street address, a city and state, a country, etc. I.E. whatever format is most appropriate for the building in question. Unfortunately with {{Infobox building}} in use on over 31,000 pages, that would be an enormous undertaking to convert. Consulting the param report, it would mean fixing nearly every single transclusion. Now we could certainly deprecate the other params in favor of |location= and then use Module:Check for deprecated parameters to slowly convert and/or get the help of a bot. But I'm not sure it is worth it. Open to suggestions... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

@JMF and Ojsyork: see my comment above and note that I have moved this discussion here for transparency. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

So why not just make the address explicit? i.e.

• Location {{{location}}}, {{{location_city}}}, {{{location_country}}}
• Address {{address}} [needs an annotation to say that this is the standard postal address]

Certainly the present arrangement Location {{{address}}}, {{{location}}}, {{{location_city}}}, {{{location_country}}} is just wrong. Elements out of order (postcode/zipcode in the wrong place etc, as noted above).

The effect, it seems to me, will not be damaging as nothing will be lost. I thought I could use White House as a "for example" but the editors of that article wisely have ignored all the 'location' options and just used the address= option. Arc de Triomphe uses only the location= option. There are very few cases where both options need to be used, so it seems to me that editors have been working around the problem. So most articles will see no change whatever because they are using only one of the two options. The worst than can happen will be that there will be a few silly and mildly embarrassing cases of

• Address: 22 Acacia Avenue, Happy Valley, Springfield ZZ 90210
• Location: Springfield, US

but nothing is going to be hurt except a few editor's pride. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hartlepool Lifeboat Station has the information spread across both options, though...

• location = The Boathouse
• address = Ferry Road, Middleton
• location_city = Hartlepool, County Durham, TS24 0RY

which would resolve to

Address: Ferry Road, Middleton

Location:' The Boathouse, Hartlepool, County Durham, TS24 0RY

which is more than a little embarassing, I admit.

So how about

• Location {{{location}}}
• Address {{address}}, {{{location_city}}}, {{{location_country}}}

Would that work? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend looking at the values in the param report to get a better idea of what to do next... Could also add a check for conflicting parameters if that would help? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I can't see how that number of use cases in isolation helps any. Maybe if we could see how many use location_city and address? (as I think that those are the only ones that are potentially embarrassing - though for example I see that, for example, Reichstag (building) already has Berlin twice.

(It has

• |location= |address = Platz der Republik 1, 11011 Berlin | location_town = Berlin | location_country = Germany

which displays as

• Location: Platz der Republik 1, 11011 Berlin, Berlin, Germany

My proposal would render that as

• Address: Platz der Republik 1, 11011 Berlin, Berlin, Germany

so no worse, perhaps better because (at least in en.uk, "location" is not used much. The only example I can think of would be a place like Stonehenge (which uses {{Infobox ancient site}} but the principle stands), where a street address doesn't make much sense.

In my proposal, a Location: line and an Address: are both displayed iff the article has address=something and has a location=something (else) too. If the article does not have address=, then the Location: line (only) continues to be displayed as at present, no change. If it only has an address=something, then the content would not change but the title "Location:" would become "Address:".

Is there a way to extract some samples of that combination? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)