Category talk:Pages with maps

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Related category discussions[edit]

Expand to view current and archived category discussions related to this category

Category:Pages with maps[edit]

Rename to Category:Pages using Kartographer maps. The current name sounds like that of a content category (as if it's meant to hold map-related pages), but this is a tracking category for a specific extension. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nyttend and Acabashi: Closed (no objections; rename Category:Pages with maps to Category:Pages using Kartographer maps) Josh (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nyttend and Acabashi: Re-opened I am concerned that this move may have far-ranging effects. In fact it appears to be a hard-coded maintenance category. See Tracking categories and Template:Location for more info. Unless we a confidnet that such a move won't break a whole bunch of templates and functions, I think this one is best left alone. Josh (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It’s not hard-coded—the category’s name is the content of MediaWiki:kartographer-tracking-category, which can be changed at any time by a sysop. It should not cause any issues (if it does, that’s a software error, which should be fixed, but this scenario is really unlikely), except that updating 14.5 million pages causes significant load on servers, but it should be manageable (and has nothing to do with software-level tracking category status, moving e.g. Category:CC-BY-SA-4.0 would have similar impact). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tacsipacsi: Thanks for clarifying! You are right, 'hard-coded' is not the right terminology to use. It sounds like it is doable, but I wanted to raise a little visibility and give the chance for some more input on this CfD before we close and make such a far-reaching change. Josh (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tacsipacsi, would you mind voting, if you have an opinion on the proposal itself? It would help if we could have a second "move" or if you could balance out the first one by explaining why this is a bad idea. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nyttend: I don’t know. I don’t think this to be a such huge issue that’s worth the effort moving it, but I understand some do think so. So I don’t want to prevent the move, but I can’t support it, either. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understood, and thank you for explaining. Nyttend (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nyttend: I would find a category for Kartographer maps alone very usefull, because it would at least give me a chance at finding examples. With media with just a set of coordinates piled on, it's practically impossible. --Hjart (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hjart: Practically all (99%+) pages in this category should contain Kartographer maps—but many of them are map links (which show the map itself upon click), not map frames (which are visible in small size even before user interaction). Splitting these two types to different categories cannot be done within Commons alone (it would require software changes), but links and frames can be queried otherwise separately. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tacsipacsi: ~90% are from Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with maps. ~20% are from Category:Categories with coordinates. What I would like to find are examples of manually added Kartographer maps, such as Category:Viking ring forts (which is in Category:Pages with maps only). Is there any other way to do that? --Hjart (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hjart: You can use PetScan to exclude pages with certain templates. But this conversation is becoming really out of scope here, so in case of further questions, please ask somewhere else (e.g. on my talk page). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agree. Every time I see this category in the list I have that nagging sensation that I've committed a categorization error because the file has no cartographic connotation save being tagged using the Location template. A rename in this instance improves UX and ultimately its usefulness as metadata. @Nyttend and Joshbaumgartner: Is this rename still planned for execution in the near future? 🐈ℛogueScholar🗨₨Talk Noto Emoji Pie 1f607.svg My recent
    OpenMoji-color 1F608-cropped.svg
    21:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My mind hasn't changed in the ten weeks since I created this nomination, but I really shouldn't close the discussion and move the category myself. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it possible to suppress Category:pages with maps on files who have Category:media with locations before moving the category? --Havang(nl) (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I know, suppression based on page metadata (namespace, root page name, page language etc.) is possible, but based on the page content itself (like other categories) is not. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agree, don't see a reason not to move it. Today was the first time I noticed this category, and it seemed odd to have it in an image without any maps. It took me a minute to realize that it was related to the coordinates on the page. —Ynhockey (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have made a protected edit request for MediaWiki:kartographer-tracking-category so when a sysop has the chance to fix it we can hopefully close this discussion successfully. Josh (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Untitled comment[edit]

We have had Category:Media with locations for a long time. What do we need this new category for? It seems that most files with locations are now in both categories. Is this really helpful? -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The page File:Wpdms 20020923b bowling green composite.jpg is in this category, though not directly (that is, the category name is not in the page source). Presumably there is some template that adds it. The problem is that the page doesn't actually have a map. Matchups (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. How do I link to an image without causing the image to display here? I can see that piping doesn't work.

@Matchups: : First, you can make a link to a picture like this: File:Wpdms 20020923b bowling green composite.jpg (see source for how I did it). Second, I think the map involved is the one you get by clicking on the WMA button2b.png icon to the left of the location, or the Openstreetmap logo.svg button on the right. --bjh21 (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Limit content to manually added maps[edit]

I want to find examples of manually added mapframes etc, but since this category currently includes tons of pages with nothing but object locations or wikidata boxes, it's useless for that purpose. Is there a chance only actual mapframes can be included in this category?--Hjart (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]