Template talk:Marker

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Changing prose to bulleted listings[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Are edits like this considered appropriate style currently? I may be a little behind in my understanding. But I don't think it's a good idea to be converting perfectly serviceable prose into an awkwardly formatted listing (look at the "directions" field) just to be able to say we have coordinates. LtPowers (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The good part of the change is that it creates a map coordinate. Is it easy to create that without using a listing template? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I still believe we need an alternate, simpler template for inserting only a POI coordinate in prose passages. Texugo (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
That would be very good to have. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that would be indeed very useful. --Danapit (talk) 07:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I thought Template: Poi already did that? Guess I am missing something? - Matroc (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I have overlooked that one. Template:Poi is marked as experimental though, so not sure if it is ready to be used widely. I see you can select the POI number manually. Maybe it is a silly question, but doesn't it collide with the automatic numbering using listings? --Danapit (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Template:Poi is not compatible with automatic numbering. We can make a new template: {{Marker | type=(see/do/...) | name=(only for map marker) | lat= | long= | image= }}. But User:Torty3 would implement the automatic numbering if possible (@Torty3: listing|marker ?). -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Sure, if people want it enough. I was thinking about inline listings, but did decide that was too complicated in the end and forgot about it amongst the wiki drama and my list of squishy bugs to squish and features to make. -- torty3 (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
torty3, I am sure that would be a very useful feature indeed if you find time to work on adding it. --Danapit (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, torty3, for adding Template:Listing Template:Marker! Let's use it. Danapit (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this was a typo, but Template:Listing is already in use, and is the base template that is used for all see, do, buy, eat, drink and sleep listings. See Wikivoyage:Listings for further details. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
This was a typo, indeed, sorry. Now we have an inline listing template: Template:Marker. --Danapit (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Marker set[edit]

Where can I find the permissible types, please?

Thanks to Joachim (User:Mey2008), I now know that "black" and "forestgreen" are available, but what others, please? --118.93nzp (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

These icons are available: [1]. But only the official types "see, do, etc." are in common use. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 10:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Terrific! Thanks for your rapid and precisely helpful answer, Joachim! --118.93nzp (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Unusual effect[edit]

When combined with the ICAO template in the name part, this template produces an unexpected italicisation and extraneous single quote marks... --118.93.244.91 23:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This edit may resolve the problem. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for trying, Ryan, but the strangeness is still exhibited here: http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Pyeongchang&oldid=2504311#By_air --118.93nzp (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
This edit fixes Pyeongchang#By air for me. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
And for me, too. Thanks! --118.93nzp (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Works/doesn't work[edit]

In the Milan article I've used the marker template a couple of times. In the Buy section it works (scroll down to "Let us not forget 17 Piazza del Duomo...") but there are at least two places; namely in the Do section twice and in the See section here where it looks like there would be an invisible forced br in the tag. I've tried the few tricks I could think of but they've been useless. It's also strange that in some cases there is another Marker in the same sentence that does not want to force the next word one row down. Anyone who can help? ϒpsilon (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

That was my fault - the fix for #Unusual effect caused the template to expand with an extra newline. This edit fixes Milan#Areas for me, but let me know if you still see any issues. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Now it looks right! Thanks! ϒpsilon (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually there's one more thing, Ryan. In the Buy section I added markers for all shopping streets and areas (basically everything in bold) yesterday (or should I say about 24h ago as you're 10 time zones away) but now I notice some of them do not show up now. Maybe that has something to do with that edit as well? Hopefully the other editors' problems in the above discussion don't come back if you fix this. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
It looks like several places in the Milan article were using "llat" instead of "lat". It should be working now. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I see, this time it was just me being clumsy while copy pasting coordinates. Thanks for fixing it! :) ϒpsilon (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Manipulating the numbers on the markers[edit]

User:Mey2008 perhaps can help :) ? I plan to make a dynamic map of the Trans-Siberian Railway marking important stations. As you may know, the route divides itself into three branches in Siberia; one to Vladivostok, one to Beijing via Mongolia and another to Beijing via Harbin. I would like to have the numbers of the markers to continue along all branches simultaneously like this example: Ulan Ude is POI number 16 from Moscow, and after Ulan Ude the route splits into two branches. The next important station in the direction towards Vladivostok is Chita, and towards Beijing, Naushki. I would like both Chita and Naushki to be labeled as number 17 (of course using different colors but I already found how to do that). Is it possible to somehow force several markers to have the same number? ϒpsilon (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I did not notice this request. See Travellers' pub. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


Geo coordinates[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Is there a way to add coordinates for POIs other than as part of a listing template?

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly use template PoiMap2? Not sure if this is what you are looking for - Matroc (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I believe {{marker}} is what you're looking for. Texugo (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, marker is very useful: {{marker|type=listing|name=Tegernsee Station|lat=47.71384|long=11.757204}} 1 Tegernsee Station Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

noprint in span class just before PoiMap2[edit]

This quite to what was discussed in Template talk:Listing#noprint in span class just before PoiMap2:

Then saving en.wikivoyage.org for offline use for Kiwix (an offline Mediawiki reader) "noprint" class in <span class="noprint plainlinks"> before {{PoiMap2 breaks creation of geo: links at listing's map number component. See Kiwix bug report for a discussion. -Vadp (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The change was tested with User:AndreCarrotflower/East_Side#Parks and then saved to the template. -- Vadp (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Has map markers[edit]

What's the utility of this category? --Andyrom75 (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Feature request: reusable markers[edit]

If I mark the same point of interest twice in the same article, symbols are created with two different numbers, and the map display shows "+" instead of the numbers. For instance, in two separate sections of this version of the Bay Area public transit article, we have {{marker|type=go|name=Fremont BART|lat=37.5574|long=-121.9758}} in two different sections, generating icons numbered 1 and 6, and when I click either of them I see a map with a plus sign, which can be clicked to show the two different numbered icons. Instead, I would like both instances of the marker to have the same number. It would be nice if the Marker template could support an ID attribute, somewhat analogous to the NAME attribute of the <REF> tag, allowing me to specify, the first time, {{marker|id=fmtbart|type=go|name=Fremont BART|lat=37.5574|long=-121.9758}}, and subsequently {{marker|id=fmtbart}}. I realize this is an unusual situation, since we normally discourage mentioning the same item twice in articles, but it would be helpful here. Peter Chastain (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Grayed-out maps[edit]

Swept in from the pub

For some reason, the WikiVoyage map feature does not display streets for some parts of Toronto. Click on the orange box for a demo. Part of the city is grayed out. Does anyone know of a fix for this problem?

Thanks TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

  • 1 Sun Star Chinese Cuisine, 636 Finch Ave E, North York (39 bus from Finch Station to bus stop named: 636 Finch Ave E.), +1 416-229-0866. Cantonese cuisine. $60 for 4 persons including tax & tip.
I think @Yurik: may be able to answer, if no one else can. I'd guess it's a bad/missing tile in the Mediawiki maps layer. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@Wrh2:, this is not our new map, its the old wmflabs-based raster mapping system that I don't know much about. The new map shows the map ok - click on the icon in the upper right, and select "wikimedia". I thought it was made to be default for everywhere? --Yurik (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I see how switching to Wikimedia works, but I have to override "Mapnik" each time. So how, does one make it the default? Is this an administrator task? Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@Mey2008, Torty3, Atsirlin: or anyone else familiar with dynamic maps - any thoughts? Do we need to update a config or template to point to the Wikimedia layer? -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
It appears that (my mini obseration) Main articles default to W (Wikimedia) in geo -- whereas: mapframe and listings (markers) seem to have M (Mapnik)- Matroc (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC) -- Evidently this is not totally true either... there are some conditions that exist that prove me incorrect...
I think I found the solution! When I insert the Mapframe tag into the article, the default becomes Wikimedia and the gray areas disappear. The above discussion did give me some inspiration on the matter. (The article was Toronto/North York.) Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I changed the default here. Seems to work - the orange link above points to the Wiki maps now. --Yurik (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Marker template - should that be changed as well.. [{{PoiMap2|{{{lat|0}}}|{{{long|0}}}|{{{zoom|17}}}|M}}.... to [{{PoiMap2|{{{lat|0}}}|{{{long|0}}}|{{{zoom|17}}}|W}}.... (|M to |W)? - Matroc (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
If it's the last argument to PoiMap2, it should be deleted, because PoiMap2 uses W as the default anyway. --Yurik (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. --Yurik (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Yurik. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: more icon types?[edit]

The list of currently available icons (corresponding to the "type=..." attribute in the "marker" template) is here https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikivoyage/w/lib/images/icon-set.png . It includes "sleep", "eat", "drink", "view" (viewpoint), whose use is obvious. There is also "go", about whose use I am not sure (Would that be for items in the "Go next" section?), and the generic "do" and "other". Other than that, there are color-coded circles, without directly associated meanings.

Would we like to add a few more special icon types? For example:

  • Something for transportation terminals (airports, bus and train stations, local transportation hubs). Maybe 3 different types, viz. "air", "bus", "train", like what you can see on Google Maps etc.
  • Embassies (they are often listed in the "Cope" section) (a flag?)
  • Maybe something for medical facilities (red cross?)
  • Maybe something for special activities types, e.g. to mark a beach/swimming hole, or the beginning of a hiking trail.
  • "museum", "library", maybe something for a performance venue

--Vmenkov (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I've used the go for travel-related listings, like airports and train stations. It produces a nice icon that looks like a portfolio. --Jonte-- (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, it is not bad, but I don't think everyone will guess that a briefcase stands for a transportation terminal... Something that looks like a train, bus, plane, or ship would be a lot more obvious, methinks. -- Vmenkov (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The briefcase was purposely used as a generic form to include trains, buses, planes and ships I guess. A smaller set of markers also made it easier for separate development and auto-numbering for both Wikivoyage and the map tool (and a lot of collaboration between different language spaces too). With more specific icon types, it starts falling into the domain of OpenStreetMap, and then I might as well use that instead of Wikivoyage. -- torty3 (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Lat/Long template?[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Is there template for creating a clickable location symbol? I would like something like the lat/long attributes of the listing template, but for open text, to use when I am mentioning several items that don't each need their own listing (e.g., "Walking around the campus, be sure to see the ___ <lat/long>, the ___ <lat/long>, and...") and for important bus routes ("Line 29 runs from ___ <lat/long> to ___ <lat/long>"). Peter Chastain (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

What would be the resulting action of the click? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
There is Template:Marker which may be close to what you are looking for. For an example see Glasgow#By_train where the two stations appear with numbered red markers. AlasdairW (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I need. Thanks! Peter Chastain (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No background color in print[edit]

Markers are not shown correctly in print. Background colors are not printed by almost all browser. The background is transparent, the numbers are black. Therefor you cannot distinguish between sed, do etc markers. As a workaround we use on WV/de borders of the same color which are shown in print, too. --RolandUnger (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

using multiple counters[edit]

Should the line group={{{type|listing}}} be group={{{counter|{{{type|listing}}}}}}, so that when different counters are stated in an article they are grouped in the map? For example see Roman Empire. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No, although would maybe work for travel topic with multiple groups, will not work for itinerary with one group but multiple types that to be displayed and seen, for example Rheinburgenweg. Could we combine counter and type to make groups? Would this work group={{{counter}}}{{{type|listing}}}? --Traveler100 (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Test appears not to make any difference to the group list and causes syntax problems with marker templates inside listing templates. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

more info on type= parameter please?[edit]

Some of the listed possible values for type= are more or less self-explanatory even for n00bs like me: see, do, buy, eat, drink, sleep. But those are the kind of things you'd typically use a listing for anyway, right? The other ones are not so obvious, imho:

  • listing: no idea what this would be used for
  • around: did I use this correctly?
  • city: for marking cities in a region article?
  • other: OK, that's obvious
  • go: for the "go next" section?
  • vicinity: for stuff in the vicinity, but wouldn't most of that stuff also fit in one of the other categories? So when do I use this?

A few words about what should be used for what or maybe a few examples would help a lot. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

  • The listing is usually used in "get in" and "get around" for infrastructure and transport which doesn't fit into the other main categories (see, do, buy, eat, drink, sleep). It also appears for miscellanea like public libraries and post offices ("connect"), embassies, health care and emergency assistance. Effectively, it is the commonly-used tag for "other" listings that don't fit elsewhere.
  • The city is most likely to appear in itinerary (like Trans-Canada Highway). By necessity, most of the region articles are still using static maps. It is possible to create a dynamic region map if there are no sub-regions (so a low-level region like Adirondacks - map - or NNY, but not the whole state).
  • There is an aller type in fr.Wikivoyage intended specifically for "get in"/"get around" transport and infrastructure; go is likely a literal translation of this, but it (and around) isn't used often as most of our articles use just plain listing for these.
  • We normally don't use {{listing}} or {{marker}} in "go next" entries as these list adjacent places which are covered in some other article.
  • I have no idea about vicinity; maybe something like Miami (Oklahoma)#Nearby where some tiny village that'd never get its own article gets a POI in a nearby city? I've never seen this used, and presume that something like "Mickey Mantle statue, Commerce OK" would be {{see}} if it ever gets a map icon? K7L (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

More than 99 markers in an article.[edit]

Is it possible to allow for more than 99 markers? I need this for a dive-site topic where there are more than 100 sites in a region. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

If it's 99 markers of each type, it might be possible to use type=red, type=blue, type=black, type=gold, type=maroon and the like as a scam to get an extra 99 markers. It's kludgy (and likely won't be very usable if printed as monochrome hard copy) but Trans-Siberian Railway#Go uses it to switch the markers for the lines to China and Mongolia to other, arbitrary pretty colours while the mainline is red.
Nonetheless, 99 is restrictive and a bug. This might've been raised in the pub before, no idea if there are any good answers. K7L (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Is this a bug or a feature? If there are more than 99 markers in an article, that's a good indicator that it's time to prune, districtify, or otherwise subdivide. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
It's a bug when dealing with itinerary, for instance a "master list" of attractions for all of Route 66 can get lengthy. We might have about sixty POI's (which currently lack map and coords) in our main US66 itinerary and twenty in the Disney version, but that's because we're omitting a fair amount of detail. National Park Service has just over 100 in their web itinerary, as a subset of the 200 venues on the national historic register, but not every POI on 66 is on NRHP. K7L (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Bug when you need more than 99. There are times when it is inappropriate to split. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Example Wales Coast Path. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
We marked this behavior as a bug about one year ago but unfortunately nothings happened. Maybe we can together up pressure to solve this problem. The only workaround we have is to use additional marker colors with an additional numbering. --RolandUnger (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for listing on phabricator. Should we do anything to shake things up? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Listings or markers for train stations[edit]

Swept in from the pub

So User:Jonte-- has written to my talk page with regards to these edits. I am still in favor of using the listing template as it allows us to point to WP articles where they exist (and those are usually much better with listing every last line and service and keeping it up to date; especially for airports). I think even for rather small stations only served by urban rail we can use the listing template as seen in Berlin/South. Should we hash out a consensus or still every editor for themself and no style guidance of any kind? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a good thing this comes up. I see where you are coming from, and agree that having the link to WP is a good thing. However I think the way it is currently done there is a visual issue with this. For instance in the Berlin/South example you mention or also in the Romanshorn article, the problem is that after every listing there will be a "." punctuation mark, which looks really awkward in my opinion if it's in the middle of the sentence. (e.g. "The 1 railway station. Romanshorn railway station (Q508197) on Wikidata Romanshorn railway station on Wikipedia is located in the town centre right next to the harbour.") I think having the wikipedia and wikidata symbol in the middle of the sentence is fine, but that full stop really looks out of place. So at the very least, when changing markers to listings, we should restructure the sentences such that the listing is at the end of the sentence (e.g. from the Berlin article: "The center of Steglitz is the U-/S-Bahn station 2 Rathaus Steglitz. (U9, S1) Berlin Rathaus Steglitz station (Q555492) on Wikidata Berlin Rathaus Steglitz station on Wikipedia") or on its own. In cases where this is not possible, because it breaks the flow of the sentence or makes it look ugly, I still think using a marker is the better solution. Drat70 (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to attention. My focus here on Wikivoyage for the last few years have been georeferencing and particularly georeferencing transport related infrastructure such as train stations. My take is that using {{marker}} for smaller listings simplifies editing and the flow of text. A large number of articles has just 1-2 lines for transport and the need for additional information is limited. I fully support using {{listing}} for larger stations where it makes sense to include information such as amenities, directions, phone numbers etc. {{marker}} blends well into text and improves the flow. An example from Mersin, Turkey which I edited recently:
"All trains are run by the national operator TCDD. The railway station, 3 Mersin Garı is situated between the city centre at the port on İstiklal Cd". For such an simple sentence, it makes no sense at all to use {{listing}}. As an compromise, I do think it would be good to rework {{marker}} so that Wikidata can be included. --Jonte-- (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. I completely agree that the above example is visually very unappealing and even looks like there is some displaying error. The example in Berlin/South is even worse making it almost unreadable. Regarding the question, whether there should be some guidelines regarding this issue, I would also agree to that. I raised a related point some time ago regarding airport listings/markers (Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#Marker_or_listing_for_Airports). The guidelines should take into account the different needs for small vs. medium-sized cities. Xsobev (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
It gets even worse, when the lastedit field ist filled:
To get into Köpenick take the S47 to 4 Spindlersfeld. Berlin-Spindlersfeld station (Q4892371) on Wikidata Berlin-Spindlersfeld station on Wikipedia or the S3 to 5 Köpenick. Berlin-Köpenick station (Q800479) on Wikidata Berlin-Köpenick station on Wikipedia and consider taking one of the many trams to the old town and the old palace.
I like having the markers in the text, but I don't like having all of the other listing things (the Wikipedia W, the Wikidata barcode, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Then you should use the {{Marker}} template instead of {{listing}}. {{listing}} is normally used as a paragraph with more detailed information but not as an inline element. Example: To get into Köpenick take the S47 to 6 Köpenick and others. --RolandUnger (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The ideal solution would be Jonte--'s proposed compromise of modifying the programming in some way, so that wikidata and wikipedia could be used in markers. That will take some time to get consensus for and actually implement. The current use of listings is far from ideal, but I don't think it's as catastrophically bad as some people are claiming here, with the possible exception of the updated tag, which can be avoided easily if you don't click the little box. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Though not really recommended, one can use maplink directly.
Example: To get into Köpenick take the S47 to Köpenick7 and others. -- would still use {{marker}} within paragraph text and not {{listing}} as mentioned above. -- Matroc (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Definitely not recommended, looking at all that coding! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree about the coding and not doing it by hand - {{marker}} produces much the same hidden code as a maplink done by hand (hurrah for templates) - use Marker as is -- Matroc (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Just use Marker. The absence of Wikipedia and Wikidata links is hardly a deal breaker when we're talking about transit stations. They're all sufficiently linked from the system's Wikipedia article. Powers (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
No they're not. And the Wikipedia link provides users who want background on a transit station with just that. More of them are historically or architecturally important than one might think. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
If they have historical or architectural importance, then they should have their own listings. Powers (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Definitely. I assume you mean a 'see' listing, though? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
In principle, the {{marker}} template can be extended to present Wikipedia, Commons, and Wikidata links. But please act with caution. {{marker}} is used by {{listing}} that means changes for marker will occur in the listing template, too. So it seems necessary to separate both templates before. If you like you can have a view to the examples of the German marker version to get some ideas to improve the marker template. --RolandUnger (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Well most people will see most Metro stops mostly as a means to get some place. A limited few might think "hm nice" at a select few particular stations, but rare is the enthusiast who will appreciate which architect or era an otherwise unremarkable station represents. And I would think it would take the truly dedicated to appreciate anything about Langwasser Süd U-Bahn station besides it being the first ever in Nuremberg and its value in transportation (in case you've gotten curious for its architecture, de-WP has more pictures) Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Sure, which is why links to Wikipedia aren't necessary for most metro stations. If a Wikipedia link is necessary, then the station probably has tourist value independent of its service as a metro stop and it should be listed in See. Powers (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Listing the same station in both "get in" (as transport) and "see" (as architecture) is a pattern we try to avoid, as we normally list an individual venue only once. Breaking this pattern risks many duplicate listings as every hotel with a restaurant claims both "eat" and "sleep". K7L (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I think making an exception for stations worth seeing seems like a good idea. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
But which are? And what do you say to the likes of Berlin/Mitte#Get in? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
In answer to the first question, we can answer that the same way we answer any question about whether to include an attraction in the "See" section. If it seems like it's interesting enough to be worth seeing, we include it. Otherwise, we don't. As for Berlin/Mitte#Get in, it seems like a decent section, I guess. I think the listing template in the first paragraph is a bit ugly, but the parentheses help set it off from the text, so it doesn't bother me the way the nearly unreadable Berlin/South#Get in does. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
In response to K7L, markers are not listings. There would be only one listing: in See. The marker in Get Around would only be for mapping purposes. Powers (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I prefer listing for stations. In many cases the WP article gives information which is mainly of interest to those using the station to get a train. For instance most UK station WP articles give the annual rail passenger usage, so I can see how busy the station is likely to be. Listings also give the full range of fields, "directions" can be used to list the best buses to get to the station, "alt" can be used for any network abbreviations for the station or local common names etc, "url" can link to the station's webpage, which can be very useful for disabled travellers. Only a very few stations are so interesting as to be a see listing, but many are interesting enough to look at while waiting for your train. AlasdairW (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I can understand that there's some value to the Wikipedia link, but surely we can all agree that Berlin/South#Get in is a mess, right? Something needs to be done about that. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that as per Talk:Berlin/South the district is likely to be split in the foreseeable future. I also think that city railway stations should if at all possible be one paragraph that is included in a listing. A similar thing should apply for municipal airports for which we don't have articles and never will. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I think there's nothing wrong with giving railway station their own paragraph and listing if and when there's enough content (for instance I think Berlin/Mitte#Get in is perfectly fine). But this discussion was started because of empty listings inserted in-line (such as in the example of Berlin/South#Get in or also Romanshorn) without any content other than the wikidata and wikipedia link and without changing the sentence to match it and I think that is an issue that you don't really address. Especially the fact that it introduces punctuation in the middle of a sentence. That is very bad for readability and makes the text much harder to understand, especially for non-native speakers. Can we as a minimum agree on not adding empty listings in-line without making sure that there's no weird punctuation in the middle of a sentence? Drat70 (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Of course. I don't think you'll get any argument about this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I would second this and propose that until we figure out if we are to update {{marker}} then we do not use {{listing}} in the middle of a sentence. Either use marker in text or create a listing after the text. In my view this is the best option from a readability perspective. --Jonte-- (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I've seen many pages where listings in the "get in" section were inserted in the middle of a sentence (@Ikan Kekek: unfortunately not as obvious as it may seem), often by just converting a "marker" to a "listing", while leaving everything around it untouched. Xsobev (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Subway stations or the likes as attractions[edit]

I think this deserves its own sub-section. I don't think there is a clear cut answer whether any given subway station counts as an attraction. To a fan of w:Alfred Grenander a "perfectly unremarkable" Berlin U-Bahn station can be a site of pilgrimage, but the majority of users will just see it as a (varyingly pretty or ugly) fact of getting around or getting in. I think having some arbitrary dividing line for which stations get two listings establishes a dangerous and unhelpful precedent capable of sapping more resources than Talk:USA already does. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Why would this be more difficult for subway stations than for any other type of "See" attraction? —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Because they are likely already listed in "get in" or "get around" and their primary value and purpose is transport, not prettiness. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Why would that make them more difficult to make decisions about than any other "See" attraction? I think we should hold them to the same standards as any other "See" listing—if they're not particularly pretty or interesting (like the vast majority of subway stations, I think), then of course they shouldn't be listed in that section. If they are of interest to sightseers (excluding subway enthusiasts), then they should be listed. I really don't understand what the objection to that would be. Anyway, I don't think this applies to very many subway stations, so I don't care all that much. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
That's a very subjective thing, though. True, newer systems like Nuremberg U-Bahn may not hold anything interesting, but the older systems are remarkable if only for the wide range of architecture they encompass. Be they "bourgeois cathedrals", "cookie cutter" standard scheme approaches, brutalism, (post-)modernism or any other style that might have been en vogue over a century. Plus a listing is also able to better be filled with a content tab or alt tab which gives the likes of the lines stopping there. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Again, I don't see how this architectural history makes them any different from any other buildings that we might consider including in the "See" section. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
The Boring Corp. Headquarters is only relevant for people who work or have business there unless it is of architectural interest. The Boring Corp. Subway stop is of interest for everyone who stays in the area or needs to go to the area. Irrespective of its architectural value. So there's a difference right there. And there is a wider range in architecture of subway stations than of Boring Corp. Headquarters. Compare this (Heidelberger Platz) with this. Almost a century apart and certainly more different than two random office towers. But 99% will still only care for whatever lies beyond the station. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
This is really not as complicated as it seems.
Would you give this station a listing, even if the subway line were abandoned? If yes, then give it a listing under ==See==. If no, then give it a marker under ==Get around== and skip the listing.
So: New York's Grand Central Station gets a listing. Milano Centrale gets a listing. But most – probably 95% of them – don't, except perhaps if someone were writing an itinerary about rail infrastructure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Some stations might also be listed under #Buy or elsewhere. How should we handle something like Shanghai/French_Concession#Xujiahui Which is a subway interchange with a collection of large malls around it? Currently it is a subsection under "Neighborhoods". What about the markets described at Shanghai#Clothing? Two (People's Park & Science Museum) are appendages of metro stops, & Qipu Lu is a shopping area with a metro stop under it. Pashley (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

When service gets abandoned, stations get too nine out of ten times. Especially if they are mostly underground structures. During the "ghost station" era, there was no way for normal civilians - East or West - to enter the ghost stations. Hence your hypothetical is a bit bizarre, sorry. And as I said, the question of whether a certain station is of relevance beyond its travel purpose is an extremely subjective one. There are churches that do not deserve a listing (unless we want to be in the business of attending to religious sensibilities) and there are churches of such architectural beauty that even misotheists, antitheists and iconoclasts might grudgingly acknowledge it. Yes Grand Central is beautiful. But even there, how many people care about its history? The name of the architect(s) involved? And you know the saying about women of ill repute, politicians and ugly houses all becoming respectable if only the last long enough. Well a similar thing may be said for some "just doing their job" public transit stations. And yet for any public transit station worth its salt, its purposes such as they may be need to all be subservient to and ultimately play second fiddle compared to its transport function. Even in Grand Central the great majority of people passing through on any given day would pass through even if it were bare concrete with rebar poking out at odd angles. And the same can be said for so close to every public transit station in active use that their transport function should for us as a travel guide be the reason to list them and any architectural beauty may or should be included in said listing, not be judged and then split off to another listing. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Most transit stations do not need listings. The only reason they even need markers is for mapping purposes. If there is a transit station that does need a listing, that listing should be in See with the other buildings of interest. Powers (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
See Shanghai/Pudong#Get_around for an example where we do have a lot of listings for metro stations. Pashley (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Huh. Are those all of the stations in the district or just a selection? Powers (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Template marker anomaly[edit]

  1. As I sometimes use maplink code, I accidently used "description=Image and some relevant text" as a parameter instead of image= parameter as used in the marker template.
    • 1 Jaipur — the state capital, also known as the Pink City
    • The image pops up on map and descriptive text displays below image. This parameter passes through and is processed and added to the GeoJSON code. This I believe is an anomoly as description is not listed as a parameter. -- Matroc (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Issue with zoom parameter[edit]

  1. Be leery about using the zoom parameter in {{marker}} as well as in <maplink>. At certain zoom levels when you click on the icon or word to open a popup map - the center position of that popup map may be off from a km or so to a large number of kms from central position -- The appropriate marker will appear in a mapframe fine. Leaving it at default of 17 should suffice. (Otherwise you may have to futz with zoom in either the mapframe and marker. Thought I would pass that on. -- Matroc (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

How many markers can you use with mapframe[edit]

  1. If you have a mapframe and want to put a lot of markers on that map created by mapframe - through testing I found that around 400 is the limit - after the limit is reached you get a GeoJSON error -- Since we probably already limit ourselves to a number <200 this should not be a problem -- Matroc (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Markers to listings[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Although I totally supported adding Wikipedia links to See, Do listings, not sure I like the look of adding Wikipedia and Wikidata link icons to city region lists. See Baden-Württemberg for example. But before I start undoing all the work done by another user, would like to hear others opinions.--Traveler100 (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your reluctance, though not just for aesthetic reasons. Why would we want to funnel readers away to WP at such an early stage? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree, both for aesthetic reasons and because I don't see why users need links to the Wikipedia and Wikidata pages for a city right next to the link to the Wikivoyage page (basically what ThunderingTyphoons! said). I've been changing "listing" templates to "marker" templates when I see them in city lists. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm on the other side - for having the links, definitely at least to wikidata. We can do it either via listings, or by moving wikidata into markers. The latter is what's done in de:Vorlage:Marker (it seems) - and thus what likely will be done also here, eventually...
  • In any case, having the wikidata references has number of benefits - if nothing else, easily accessible URL/picture and also lat/long data. For sure the processing would be simpler for bots. E.g. in case we decide to have some nice overview maps in the future (like "biggest cities in the Alps"), having the wikidata IDs in place would help grouping acc. to regions etc. In short - all the wikidata links help automated processing.
  • As for the wikipedia links - it probably is a good idea at least for the articles we don't have yet? Like here it'd help, IMO.
  • I'm actually half-way of having User:AndreeBot ready to convert the current outline region articles into having at least listings out of the cities (and probably also 'other destinations', if it's easy to do). Markers are possible too, in the end. But using listings sounds more logical. Also, should we change our minds, converting to listings to markers is easier than the other way around... Andree.sk (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on the functionality perspective yet but in terms of aesthetics, I think it's looks uglier in the City section compared to See and Do because the WP and WD links are at the start of the listing instead of at the end. Also the city descriptions are usually one-liners so the WP and WD logos stand out more compared to a listing with say, 3 lines of content. Gizza (roam) 22:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I believe that we don't need a WP link for cities at least with a blue link. The whole point of see listings being linked to WP is because we don't have an article for sights themselves here. We don't have articles on museums so we link to WP if someone wants to read about the museum in detail. That's not the case with cities. And I don't think Wikipedia should get a preference when other WMF wikis have content about that city. Looking at the sidebar of Los Angeles for example, there is a Wikimedia Commons page, Wikinews page, WP page and Wikiquote page. A traveller reading the California guide and seeing Los Angleles in the list may want to see a gallery of images showing the city instead of encyclopedic information (making Commons if anything a more suitable link) or they may want to read current news or quotes about the city. Also I wonder if there's a way to add the Wikidata link but make it not show up in the article (so we can obtain lat/long information from it but the reader can't see it on the region page unless they click on the city link and then see it in the sidebar of the city article). Gizza (roam) 22:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
If we want to add the Wikidata IDs to city lists for bots without making them show up in the article for readers, we can just add "wikidata=Q12345" to the "marker" template. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
For the most part, India articles with Cities or Other Destinations were entered via marker templates. These are generally linked to a corresponding article page from which you can get to Wikipedia and Wikidata. Yes you can add "wikidata=Q12345" to the "marker" template without issue; however, I wouldn't advocate it (Using the same idea, you can enter a parameter description which is also not a listed parameter but will show up when you click on a map icon - just being cautious about adding parameters). -- Matroc (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC) - If wanted, I would add valid parameters for wikidata and wikipedia in the marker template and not have the icons with links show up on a page - simpler and to the point I think.
We should have links to Wikipedia and Wikidata for Stuttgart in the side menu of the "Stuttgart" page, but not in the higher level article Baden-Württemberg. I agree with ThunderingTyphoons!'s comment above. Nurg (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

...I mostly agree with the points above - it's hardly useful to have wikipedia links e.g. in the top-most region articles. However I'd argue it's a good thing to use listing for whatever resembles "* Place palace. Short description". IMO markers should be only used e.g. for waypoints, locations of metro stations, locating parts of listings (e.g. interesting statues in a park) and such. Listings could be exported into gpx/kml, or put on the dynamic map including the description (compared to when the description is outside content=)... Additionally, routinely I find "listings created using marker", where the descriptions are slightly different on each level of regions, mostly typo fixes etc. This is hard to maintain via bot reliably, but could be easily cross-checked if we used listing+content+wikidata...

So instead of extending {{marker}}, I'd suggest to use the more logical/structured way - and instead add something like no-wiki-icons into {{listing}}...? Or perhaps we can somehow make this default behavior - if {{listing}} is used in a region article, don't show icons, unless force-wiki-icons is specified in the listing? Andree.sk (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I fully understand. First, it sounds to me like you're saying that when "listing" templates are used, the descriptions are included in the dynamic map—is that true? If so, where are they? I've never noticed them. Second, it sounds like you're saying you want to use a bot to edit cities' one-liner descriptions to make them the same at every level of the region hierarchy. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me—I think that, for instance, it's appropriate for the one-liner description of Denver to be different in Colorado and Rocky Mountains (United States of America). —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Both were just theoretical possibilities, of course... I like cross-referenced stuff, because you can do interesting things with that (I like to do technical stuff around here more, than writing prose - if it wasn't obvious yet :)). The bottom line was - if we go with {{marker}}, it's not only semantically weird, but also cuts us from possible improvements in the future - or at least we'd have to write a non-trivial conversion bot. Within few seconds, I found this sample article - to me, such usage of markers is completely weird. Instead of using {{listing}} (possibly with recently introduced inline=yes, to get rid of the dot), {{marker}} is used and manual markup to format alt and content. Superfluous work... And if we want to keep consistent style, it's also bad, if each region has different style of listings ("xxx. A big city." vs. "xxx - is a big city" vs. "xxx (a big city)"). Andree.sk (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

So this discussion was cited in favor of removing WP and WD links. Is this really the consensus that was established here? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

By my count, the discussion included six users arguing for using "marker" templates in this situation, and only one user arguing for using "listing" templates instead. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Internet links and coordinates being created[edit]

I see some markers used for cities in regions automatically creating web links. Appears to be if wikidata parameter is used. These should be at the start of the city article page, I do not think they should be making the listings too busy, or taking people away from this site too soon. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to an article where this is happening, please, so everyone understands exactly what's going on? (Likewise for the section below.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry should have done that. Metro Cebu. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for the link. I agree, the automatic external link is no good. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, we can add it later, for now I'll remove the automatic links... I agree it would be really only useful for the city articles listings, as you said - but I'm not sure how to automatically determine this in the code (yet). Andree.sk (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
do not do it for type=city. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
But then - what if we don't have an article about the particular city? ... Andree.sk (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
It can always be added manually. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Coordinates being created without being manually set[edit]

On the whole probably a good and clever idea, but do we always want coordinates added to listings automatically when wikidata parameter is set? My main concern is the lat/long being changed on Wikidata but not being highlighted in peoples watchlist of articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This rabbit hole goes deeper - someone might even change the wikidata image to something weird, or e.g. vandalize/break the metro tracks... I agree the watching is "broken" by this. On the other hand - copying WD stuff to WV "just for watching" of course removes the WD benefits (like "free" better images in the future, or e.g. probably more often updated URLs). Andree.sk (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure automatically adding coordinates is a good idea either. There are too many cases where it doesn't make sense—for instance, if a listing is for something that doesn't have a fixed location from a traveller's perspective (because it's a transportation network, say, or a performance that rotates venues) but Wikidata provides the coordinates for the headquarters or corporate office (often irrelevant to travellers). User:Traveler100's comment and User:Ceever's comment in the pub are also relevant. I think it seems better not to add coordinates automatically and instead allow editors to add them at their discretion using the "Update shared fields using values from Wikidata" button. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd been half-heartedly slaving away to try to fix a few issues in a travel topic which needs to be ready for next month; one of the oddities I'd found was a museum listing for a group of five museums in Palmyra (New York) operated by the same historic society. The Wikipedia entry covered all five as one entity (d:Q24060783). The FTT candidate needs to single out just one of the five, which directly fits our article's topic. That means we need to pick out (lat,long) for one specific museum in the cluster of five. One more reason why free human labour will not be entirely replaced by machines? :) K7L (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Some kind of compromise might be possible. For instance, a bot could copy coordinates from Wikidata for "eat" and "sleep" listings, while not touching "do" and "go" listings (which are more likely to have irrelevant coordinates). Or the bot could copy the coordinates for all kinds of listings and leave editors to sort out the ones that are irrelevant. But with the automatic coordinates, we end up with irrelevant coordinates that I'm don't know how to remove without removing the Wikidata parameter from the listing. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
This ignores the main reason for wikidata - to avoid duplicating the data... If even wikipedia is OK with using WD, I'd say we should rather find a way to use the data too wherever possible - and only "override" locally. In the end, the choice is simple - either we have no coords, or we have slightly inaccurate ones from wikidata "for free". The Aqaba example from Pub is extreme, but still I'd argue it's still "within few streets accurate" - still much better than nothing (try to find that place without local guide and without address, esp. if you don't even know the alphabet they use).
Regarding the 'rotating performances' and the like - we shouldn't even have wikidata for them, from the previous discussion. I'll probably stop running the bot for this task (auto adding WD links from WP). But if I should keep it running, just use 'wikipedia article#' as wikipedia (note the hash tag). We could similarly add '0:0' as coords, and not produce markers for such thing? It's also a hack though, and probably newcomers would not know...
German WV had the same discussions for sure, perhaps we can ask someone there? Andree.sk (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Just to put things in perspective. The Aqaba example is not "extreme", as you claim, but very regular. I feel like Wikidata coordinates are worse than Wikivoyage about 40-60% of the time. I have raised this issue about a year ago when people were so eager to use WD, and already then I pointed out the bad quality of GPS data on WD. Yes, you might be a little off, one or two streets. BUT WHY are we erasing the accurateness of Wikivoyage data by using WD in the first place. Cheers Ceever (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Marker/Listing templates with wikidata support[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Guys, I'd like to replace the current {{Marker}} with {{Marker/sandbox}}, and {{listing}} with {{listing/sandbox2}}. Basically it should work 1:1, except that marker now accepts wikidata IDs. Thanks to that, missing title/url/lat/long/image are automagically fetched from the wikidata entry. This is also a step to allow nice (and simply implemented by a bot) region maps/lists. If you guys could test it (like this) on a few pages - check that all works (at least as good) as previously, that'd be great. I'll do a few more tests within the following days too, of course. (PS: @RolandUnger: will probably introduce a less 'hacky' version of this sometime, but I was waiting for it for 1/2 year already, so I decided to implement it for the time being... :-) ). Andree.sk (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  • @Andree.sk, Traveler100: could you fetch the Wikidata label whenever a Wikidata item is present? This has the advantage that Wikidata has track of its use. Jura1 (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
    @Jura1:, any idea whether the mw.wikibase.getEntity() function works by fetching complete wikidata entry, or rather some "lazy fetch" way (can't quickly figure it out from here? Currently Module:Map uses it, and then just takes the label (e.labels.en.value) when needed (which is however probably next to never on this site, currently)... Andree.sk (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
    @Andree.sk: Possibly. This change was sufficient before. The items added here should appear on [2]. Jura1 (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
    @Jura1:... done :) Andree.sk (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
    Note: Attempt to provide absent lat and long parameters within a marker with just a wikidata id does not work with geo. There is an issue probably with timing where these coordinates are not available for the geo map but ok within a mapframe on a page. -- Matroc (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    @Matroc: The problem is not timing, it's the obsolete/abandoned poimap2.php script, which is basically a separate implementation of our marker template/modules. See Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#Merging_map/marker_functionality_with_de.wikivoyage Andree.sk (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata lat/longs[edit]

We now have an ability to get lat/longs from Wikidata. Adding a WD value to a marker or listing results in a marker appearing in a mapframe in the article. However the marker does not appear if a full page map is displayed using the map icon at the top of the article. For an example see Kapiti Coast. If the WD value is added to a listing, the listing editor can then be used to add the lat/long easily by clicking on the "Update shared fields using values from Wikidata" link, but this is not available with markers. It looks like it is better fill in lat/long values in addition to adding the WD value. AlasdairW (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I would advise to import the lat/longs manually, or at least double check them after importing. For the second item in the list, for example, the marker for Paekakariki is actually placed in the ocean if you zoom in on the map (which I personally find undesirable). ArticCynda (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Coordinates from Wikidata should not be displayed automatically like this, at least not for all POIs. I thought we already discussed this at Template talk:Marker. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The "Appalachian Trail" marker in Mid-Atlantic is an example of why this shouldn't be done automatically. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
You can override those cross-continental trails coords to make them fit, or fix wikidata/override for the likes of Paekakariki .-) The lat/long are not copied from WD (by the bot), so it's easy to see where the marker coords may be off... Andree.sk (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I still don't see any way to remove coordinates from listings that shouldn't have them at all, short of removing the Wikidata parameter. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Forgot to document it - there's the "NA" value that can be passed to lat/long to do exactly this. Andree.sk (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, seems you are right - also the german WV seems to have the same issue, so it must be some fundamental problem w/ {{PoiMap2}}... :-( Andree.sk (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Again: Wikidata - like Wikivoyage - is a wiki. If you see something wrong, fix it! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Where to put optional Wikipedia field[edit]

I've seen Wikipedia fields in some markers. Where should they be inserted? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek:, any examples? The markers only use optional wikidata (to fetch missing fields)... You can of course specify wikipedia param too, but it won't show up anywhere (AFAIK). -- andree.sk(talk) 19:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, that's a shame. No, I don't remember where I saw examples, sorry. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

POP-UP maps for markers/listings[edit]

Swept in from the pub
  • Noticed that the pop-up map is not showing when clicking on the listing/marker icon on a page -- Can someone check as it may be a server or other issue - Thanks -- Matroc (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Broken for me in three web browsers on macOS Sierra 10.12.6. I'm pretty sure it was working very recently (possibly within the last 24 hours). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Anybody of the Wikimedia Foundation's programmers changed <maplink> behavior completely. CSS cursor events were set to none, the cursor was changed and the map is substituted by a special page.
You should add to MediaWiki:Common.css‎ the following lines:
.client-js .mw-kartographer-maplink:not(.mw-kartographer-link):not(.ve-ce-focusableNode), .client-js .mw-kartographer-map:not(.mw-kartographer-link):not(.mw-kartographer-interactive) {
	pointer-events: auto;
	cursor: pointer;
}
I think after this you will not see a pop-up map any longer but a special page like this. I think the programmers have no idea why we use the markers in the articles and that they are all shown on the maps.
At the German version we changed the display of maps and wrote several months ago our own client-side map scripts. --RolandUnger (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
This has made me a little bit angry. So my original thought that this was a new feature improvement for the worse was not in error. When will the usage of group and show parameters disappear as well? Limiting the versatile and practical usage of Kartographer as WV has been using it; almost seems to make it worthwhile to rethink using this extension at all. -- Matroc (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The phabricator task was raised to high priority. Now French wikipedians reported the same failure. I do not know the intention to change to code to the worse. I think the new programmers are not familiar with the project as a whole. --RolandUnger (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
спасибо за эта -- I agree with you - Matroc (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Appears to be back and working - thank you -- Matroc (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
To clarify the issue, we recently had the need to remove event logging from some projects due to resource redirection and improvement of page performance, during development we accidentally removed a piece of code that created the issue and doesn't have a test case, the code passed through our CI jobs and got into production. We are sorry about that, once we were able to take a look into the problem we tried to deploy a fix ASAP. Thank you for reaching us and help us to identify the problem quickly. MSantos (WMF) (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

No alt field[edit]

I'm surprised that this template doesn't support an "alt" field. Surely it's obvious why it would be useful. Should it be added? --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)