View source for Template talk:Infobox mapframe

{{Permanently protected}}
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|
{{WikiProject Geographical coordinates}}
{{WikiProject Geography}}
}}
{{faq|page=Module talk:mapframe/FAQ|see also=[[mw:Help:Extension:Kartographer]]|collapsed=no}}
{{Lua sidebar}}
{{Archives}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(60d)
| archive=Template talk:Infobox mapframe/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=2
| maxarchivesize=75K
| archiveheader={{Archive}}
| minthreadsleft=3
| minthreadstoarchive=1
}}

== require from another Lua module ==

I tried to require this from [[Module:Infobox military conflict/sandbox]] but it just broke all of [[Template:Infobox military conflict/testcases]], saying {{tq|Lua error in Module:Infobox_mapframe at line 24: assign to undeclared variable 'trimArgs'.}}

Does that mean the trimArgs function needs to be p.trimArgs for this to work elsewhere? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 20:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

:Looks like [[Module:Mapframe]] uses an explicit namespace for its trimArgs (util). This was introduced in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module%3AMapframe&diff=prev&oldid=964739874] which doesn't explain it, but it sounds like that's it. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 20:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
::There's an easier way: [[Wikipedia:Mapframe maps in infoboxes]], in particular step #5 in the Process section that leads to [[Module:Infobox mapframe#Automatic maps in infoboxes]]. Regs, [[User:The Equalizer|The Equalizer]] ([[User talk:The Equalizer|talk]]) 21:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
:::But [[Template:Infobox military conflict]] is entirely implemented in the Lua module...? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 22:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
::Doing the same here helped avoid the syntax errors. (Sadly, it still didn't render the map frame.) --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 17:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Okay, figured it out, it does generally work.
:::Now the final problem I have at [[Module:Infobox military conflict]] is that I can't seem to set a new default value for mapframe-zoom. Does anyone have an idea why this would be ignoring me? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 21:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
::::Looks like you got it to work then. Well done but are there some benefits hard coding the call directly in this way. Regs, [[User:The Equalizer|The Equalizer]] ([[User talk:The Equalizer|talk]]) 08:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:The Equalizer|The Equalizer]] as far as I can tell, the most common mechanism has been to manually make a copy of the args table, and then make the adjustments. But in this case, it would mean copying like a hundred values, which sounds insane. I need to see about doing this in a loop. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 08:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::Clarify for me - does it need a new default value? The transclusion uses the default value of mapframe which is zoom level 10 and that seems to work consistently on the test cases and other pages using military conflict. The mapframe zoom parameter can be added to individual maps of course and the mapframe only appears when there is no existing legacy map so has limited impact. [[User:The Equalizer|The Equalizer]] ([[User talk:The Equalizer|talk]]) 11:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::The problem is that the context of military conflicts isn't typically zoom level 10. Wars and battles aren't typically fought in a way where that zoom level is useful, and esp. because a lot of it is history, so modern-day features aren't really that relevant. There's many thousands of them like that, so I'd really like to not have to tune them manually. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 16:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
:::: BTW I asked about this at [[Module talk:Arguments#writing to the args table when the key contains a hyphen (-)]]. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 11:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Zackmann08|Zackmann08]] BTW would the underscored parameters fix this, if it was .mapframe_zoom? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 11:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Joy}} I'll be honest, I have no clue what's going on here. This one is a little over my head. Sorry! '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 19:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

== Problem with the TemplateData ==

{{ping|Hike395}} can you help out here... I feel like I'm missing something obvious. The [[WP:TemplateData|TemplateData]] for this template says that all parameters should be prefixed with {{code|mapframe-}}. While that works when calling the MODULE, it appears that the opposite is true when using the TEMPLATE....
;With mapframe- prefix as per the TemplateParams (note nothing displays as it is not getting the coordinates)
{{tlc|infobox mapframe |mapframe-coordinates{{=}}{{(}}{{(}}coord|31|56|S|115|58|E{{)}}{{)}}}}
{{infobox mapframe |mapframe-coordinates={{coord|31|56|S|115|58|E}} |mapframe-marker-color = #ff0000}}
;WITHOUT mapframe- prefix
{{tlc|infobox mapframe |coordinates{{=}}{{(}}{{(}}coord|31|56|S|115|58|E{{)}}{{)}}}}
{{infobox mapframe |coordinates={{coord|31|56|S|115|58|E}}}}

Is the TemplateData wrong? If so can/should that be fixed in the Module? '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 18:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
:If the TD is wrong, it should be fixed on the documentation page. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 18:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
::{{u|Jonesey95}} I 100% agree. I want to hear from someone ({{u|Hike395}}) who understands this Module better than I to make sure I'm not missing something... If they can confirm that the TD '''is''' wrong, I will personally update it. I'm pretty sure it is, but want to make sure I'm not missing something. '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 18:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
:::The details in TD are correct but in the right situation. Infobox mapframe can be used by 
:::* calling the template directly in a page source code (as per your example) 
:::* adding parameters to other infobox templates 
:::* fully coding it into other infobox modules.
:::With the first only the standard parameters are needed, with the latter two parameters with the mapframe-* prefix are needed since you aren't calling mapframe directly but through another template.
:::It is explained elsewhere but is a bit scattered. Could do with removing from the template instructions, and explaining that if doing the above integrations go to where it is again detailed at {{tlx|Module:Infobox mapframe}}. Regs, [[User:The Equalizer|The Equalizer]] ([[User talk:The Equalizer|talk]]) 18:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
::::{{ping|The Equalizer}} Appreciate your explanation. This is a bit complicated so I want to make sure I am understanding you correct before I change anything...
::::The TD for '''TEMPLATE''' Infobox mapframe, is wrong. If you call {{tl|Infobox mapframe}} you '''need''' to NOT use the prefix {{code|mapframe-}}.
::::If you are using the '''MODULE''', for example if you are working on a transclusion of {{tl|Infobox settlement}} which has [[Module:Infobox mapframe]] built into it, THEN you need to use the prefix {{code|mapframe-}}. 
::::Based on my understand of your comments, the TD for {{tl|Infobox mapframe}} DOES need to be updated, but we '''do not''' need to change the documentation for {{tl|Infobox settlement}} (or other infoboxes that use the module) as those are correct. (To be clear that was never really in question, but just want to be clear). '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 19:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::That sounds right to me. I'm pretty sure that TemplateData is used only by the Visual Editor when inserting or editing the template directly. So that's the first bullet above, which means that the prefixed parameters would not be valid, if I am understanding correctly. It appears that the correct fix is to remove the prefixed parameters from the TemplateData so that the Visual Editor uses valid parameters. 
:::::When the prefixed template parameters are used directly in other infoboxes that show mapframe maps, the template documentation for those infobox templates should show only the prefixed parameters as valid. 
:::::This may mean that the prefixed parameters are not valid in the unknown parameter check here at Infobox mapframe, but I would want to get verification of that by someone who understands the module code and/or someone who can demonstrate on the testcases page that the prefixed parameters do or do not work. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 19:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zackmann08/sandbox&oldid=1319078305 This test] in my sandbox appears to prove what {{u|Jonesey95}} is saying, that the {{para|mapframe-...}} versions of these parameters do '''NOT''' work when called from the '''TEMPLATE''' version. IMHO this should be changed. {{para|mapframe-marker-color}} and {{para|marker-color}} should both be acceptable parameters for consistency's sake. '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 19:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::So it looks like the TemplateData section should be changed to match the template documentation. As far as I can tell, the template documentation does not mention any prefixed parameter names. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 19:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::::So for now I have gone ahead and updated the template data... 
::::::::Once the new ParamReport is generate in November I plan to clean out {{clc|Category:Pages using infobox mapframe with unknown parameters}}. 
::::::::Ideally BEFORE than happens on Nov 1st, the unresolved question is should that parameter names in {{tl|Infobox mapframe}} be changed to be consistent with [[Module:Infobox mapframe]]? 
::::::::{{Ping|Hike395|The Equalizer}} it appears the only difference in the code is that TEMPLATE {{tl|Infobox mapframe}} calls {{mlx|Infobox mapframe|main}} while all other templates that call the module call {{mlx|Infobox mapframe|auto}}. Should that be changed for consistency and CAN it be done in a way that won't break the 81,000+ pages that currently use TEMPLATE {{tl|Infobox mapframe}}. '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 20:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I'll let others answer as well, but as I said on Zackmann08's talk page, I think the mapframe-xxx parameter names are assigned in order to prevent parameter namespace conflicts. If we support them here, will we cause parameter name conflicts in pages that use this template along with other infobox templates? – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 00:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I can't ''imagine'' that a ''more specific'' parameter name, that is prefixing with {{code|mapframe-}} would cause a conflict... But Jonesey is right, that needs to be considered. '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 01:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
:The problem is also that we refer people to use this templatedata elsewhere when they integrate per [[Module:Infobox mapframe/doc]]. After [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_mapframe/doc&curid=57389889&diff=1319096813&oldid=1319082416 this edit], the advice becomes wrong.
:I think changing the code to always support parameters with the prefix is the way to go. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 06:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
::I mean we could also just tell people to copy the TemplateData from [[Module:Infobox mapframe/doc]] instead, which remains correct. Seems bizarre to have the template data right there and then say "copy this from somewhere else". I will also point out that {{tl|Infobox mapframe/doc/parameters}} which is transcluded on dozens of templates '''remains correct'''. The documentation is ONLY updated for direct use of the template. 
::But regardless of this, I agree with {{u|Joy}}. The best, safest, least confusing option is to make it so that when called from the template, both prefixed and non-prefixed params will work. It should be a simple one line regex... {{code|str {{=}} mw.ustring.gsub(str, 'mapframe%-', '<nowiki/>')}} should do the trick I think. '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 07:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Um, I'm not sure what you mean, because we don't have a separate copy of templatedata at that link? I also don't think it's a good idea to maintain two separate copies of the entire blob just because of this largely clerical distinction. It's bad enough we copy&paste the templatedata blob elsewhere. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 14:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Joy}} sorry this is all confusing and I'm not doing the best job of explaining... 
::::* {{tl|Infobox mapframe/doc/parameters}} is what is transcluded on the documentation pages which use the module. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_mapframe/doc/parameters&namespace=10&limit=250&hidelinks=1&hideredirs=1 the large list of transclusions].
::::* {{tl|Infobox mapframe/doc}} is the documentation specifically for the template. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere?target=Template%3AInfobox+mapframe%2Fdoc&namespace=10&hidelinks=1&hideredirs=1&limit=50 see its 1 transclusion] 
::::Basically if you use the MODULE, you have to prefix with {{code|mapframe-}} to avoid parameter name conflicts as {{u|jonesey95}} explained above. If you are using the TEMPLATE, there is no need to prefix because the parameters are contained within the template call. This goes to the intricacies of how templates differ from modules. You seem to be pretty well versed with that distinction so I don't want to patronize you by explain things you already understand... But if I can provide more clarification let me know! 
::::All that being said, I do think it would make everyone's life easier if {{code|mapframe-...}} worked for both the module AND the template. We don't have to remove support for the non-prefixed parameters in the template version. But I would suggest changing the documentation to ''only'' indicate the {{code|mapframe-}} prefixed ones so that moving forward people use those instead and keep everything consistent. 
::::Again, sorry I'm not doing the best job explaining. Hopefully this post makes a bit more sense but let me know if I can provide more clarification... '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 23:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Zackmann08|Zackmann08]] the problem I'm talking about is the hundreds of other infobox templates and modules that use the module. They all each may have their own TemplateData, and indeed many do, which then needs to contain the mapframe parameter definitions. Otherwise, they only get the static parameter documentation and people using VisualEditor can't modify their mapframe aspects, right? There doesn't seem to be a documented inclusion mechanism for sharing that, instead it gets copied and pasted. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 07:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Joy}} Ah I get ya. I ''think'' the ''proper'' way to do it is to use {{tl|Infobox mapframe/doc/parameters}} but that absolutely is not well documented. '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 15:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::There is no templatedata in there. Would it be possible to add it there? Is it possible to have two <nowiki><templatedata></nowiki> tags on the same page that get combined into the VisualEditor forms? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 16:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{facepalm}} {{ping|Joy}} I finally understand why you and I were on different pages (kinda literally). You are correct, that template does NOT have template data. That is my error. It has parameter documentation, but NOT the TemplateData. NOW I get what you meant. I think the best way to resolve this is to just do what we both have seperately suggested... Make {{tl|Infobox mapframe}} function with {{code|mapframe-}} prefixed parameters. Then all the template data will line up. {{U|Hike395}} is this something you can help us make happen? I '''think''' that all we need to do is sanitize the parameters with a regex like: {{code|str {{=}} mw.ustring.gsub(str, 'mapframe%-', '<nowiki/>')}}. Then both the prefixed and un-prefixed parameters will work. I'm happy to mock something up in the sandbox of the module, but with no testcases for the MODULE (I know there are template testcases) I would be ''very'' uncomfortable merging this to the Module without Hike395's input. --'''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 22:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ping|Joy}} I have mocked this up in [[Module:Infobox mapframe/sandbox]]. Was a pretty straight forward change. I checked the [[Template:Infobox mapframe/testcases|TEMPLATE testcases]] and nothing seems to be broken there... The change I made is only touched when calling the {{code|main}} function. Templates that use the module, such as {{tl|Infobox settlement}}, are '''supposed to''' use the {{code|auto}} function. If they were using the main function it wouldn't be working properly already... Based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%2FInfobox+mapframe%5C%7Cmain%2Fi&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&ns10=1&ns828=1 this search] I'm pretty confident that nothing beyond the template is using {{code|main}} so I am fairly comfortable with the change... But I still do want a second set of eyes on this. Maybe you can do a little testing and report back? '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 22:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
{{od|9}} I am confused. Can someone explain to me the problem that we are solving by adding "mapframe-" parameters to {{tl|Infobox mapframe}}? In general, you want to avoid adding redundant parameters to a template, because that can a template to be difficult to maintain in the future. That doesn't mean you should never do it, but changing documentation is preferable to adding redundant parameters. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 11:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|hike395}} the TLDR version is that the '''module''' version of Infobox mapframe requires these prefixed parameters, the '''template''' version not only doesn't require them, but doesn't work with them in place. This results in confusing/different TemplateData. For people like you, me and {{u|Joy}} this isn't as much of an issue as we really understand the difference between Modules and Templates. But for the average user this leads to confusion. Per the [https://bambots.brucemyers.com/TemplateParam.php?wiki=enwiki&template=Infobox+mapframe param report] there are over 10,000 attempts to use {{code|mapframe-}} prefixed parameters. Our conclusion, based on the lengthy discussion above, is that it would make everyone's life easier to do the following: 
:# Support the {{code|mapframe-}} prefixed parameters in both places
:# Continue to support the NON prefixed parameters in the template version
:# Only ''document'' that prefixed parameters in the TemplateData and /doc so that the documentation between the 2 stays consistent and we don't have to maintain 2 separate sets of TemplateData.
:Let me know if you have any other questions! '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 15:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
::I'm with {{U|Hike395}} at this time, until real evidence of need is presented. I clicked on one of those 10,000 at random, [[Bakassi]], which is allegedly using {{para|mapframe-coordinates}} and I don't see it trying to use {{para|mapframe-coordinates}} directly. Also, why would a module need TemplateData? Let's figure out what the actual problem is, if there is one. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 02:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Hmm. I'm wondering if this has something to do with how the param report is generated... I too clicked on a random article and don't see it using the {{para|mapframe-coordinates}}. It uses {{para|coords}} which is an accepted parameter of {{tl|Infobox mapframe}} but yet doesn't appear ONCE in the param report. I don't know how the param report is actually generated but could it be somehow replacing the prefix? I'm confused... 
:::{{u|Jonesey95}} {{tq|why would a module need TemplateData}}. You are correct, the module doesn't. The issue is that when [[Module:Infobox mapframe]] is added to another template (say {{tl|Infobox oil refinery}} which I'm about to add it to...) people need to go somewhere to get the TemplateData. The issue that {{u|joy}} identified is that if you look at the very bottom of [[Module:Infobox mapframe/doc]] you will see {{tq|Parameters can also be added to the TemplateData, which can be copied and pasted from the relevant parts of [[Template:Infobox mapframe/doc]]}}. The problem is that the TemplateData found at that link '''will not work''' for templates using the module as it does not contain the {{code|mapframe-}} prefix. So if you follow the instructions (or just go to the template) and copy that TemplateData to another template (using my example, {{tl|Infobox oil refinery}}) you will get a bunch of parameters that don't work. 
:::Now the ''other'' solution (and I'm guessing the one you and {{u|Hike395}} will go for), is to change the freaking directions. Don't tell people to copy data that won't freaking work. That is 100% valid. My (and I think {{u|Joy}}'s thinking) was why not just unify this so that the parameters are the same whether you are using the Module incarnation OR the Template incarnation. It seems to me to be the most user-friendly approach. 
:::Again, for the 4 of us this may not be necessary as we really do get the difference between Modules and Templates. I don't think all editors share that depth of knowledge. So my 2 cents is there is no harm with having both {{para|mapframe-marker}} & {{para|marker}} do the same thing in the template version. Particularly when ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AComparePages&page1=Module%3AInfobox+mapframe&page2=Module%3AInfobox+mapframe%2Fsandbox as shown by this diff]) it isn't an enormous refactor. I just don't see the downside to having these aliases in the Template... But maybe I'm missing something? '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 04:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
::::If the instructions are wrong, let's change the instructions. I'm not inclined to bend over backwards to support the poorly designed world that is TemplateData. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 14:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
::::The downside to duplicate parameters in the template is that any automated downstream edits (e.g., using [[WP:AWB|AWB]]) now are twice as complicated, because they have to handle two cases, not one. I agree with Jonesey95: I would change the instructions instead of the template. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 15:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::Fair enough. '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 20:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

== hidden module by default ==

How could we best implement the way mapframe looks hidden by default at [[Vancouver]] or [[Florence]] - in the module?

Do we just open-code the gist of {{tl|hidden begin}} and {{tl|hidden end}}, wrapping the output into the two HTML div's with those classes? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 22:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
:[[MOS:HIDE|Why would we want to hide information by default]]? – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 23:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
::I would also argue this is bloat. Why do you need 5 different maps for [[Vancouver]]? 1 image, 1 mapframe and 3 pinpoints. Surely we can eliminate at least one of these... Mapframe is still ''relatively new'' (at least compared to the pinpoint maps) so that might be why, but really, is there any reason to have so many maps '''in the Infobox'''?! Especially since the mapframe basically duplicates what the image shows... '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 23:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
:::Mapframe ostensibly duplicates pushpin maps, but it is a much more featureful map compared to them. I've talked about this recently at e.g. [[Talk:Florence#map layout]], please see there for an elaboration. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 00:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
::Generally, mapframe tends to be the freshest addition of them all, so it should be a conservative migration in these cases - it treats the existing elements as primary, and mapframe as an optional addition, hence something that might be accessed infrequently enough that it can be hidden. In fact, [[Talk:Florence]] shows a case of an editor complaining even about a second map.
::Additionally, in my case I specifically posted this because of the {{tl|Infobox organization}} mapframe implementation. Apparently, folks have been adding coordinates to those infoboxes willy nilly, without an assumption that these would be rendered on a map. Now that I made them actually show up when there's no other map, someone noticed they're often given undue weight and noted it at [[Template talk:Infobox organization]]. It's a legitimate complaint in context - while it can be vaguely useful to be able to see where an organization's headquarters are on a map, there's a lot of cases where it's unhelpful by default because it's just one data point about a topic whose display on a map should really include a multitude of points. Hence, that migration also needs to be made more conservative. onByDefault=off would be too conservative in my mind. A rolled up version would seem like a reasonable compromise between these two options. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 00:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't think it helps to hide something that is unhelpful for misleading. It should be removed instead. MOS suggests: {{tq|If information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all.}} – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 00:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
::::The problem is that we really don't know whether it's extraneous or trivial. We found a fair few cases where it is, but there's also some where it isn't, where the headquarters location is relevant. There's [https://bambots.brucemyers.com/TemplateParam.php?action=paramlinks&wiki=enwiki&template=Infobox+organization&param=coordinates over 1k of them at this time]. It's not a trivial choice of a default. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 02:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
:::::I might be missing something. For those instances where it isn't helpful, it should be removed, not hidden. For those that it is helpful, it should be shown. In either case, hiding it isn't the best solution. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 16:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
::::::Okay, and how do you do that using the facilities that the template provides? Beyond a manual review of all those articles, I don't see how. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 18:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

== More parameter confusion: caption and mapframe-caption? ==

The questionable TemplateData lists "caption" as a supported parameter, and I see "args.caption" in the module, but I haven't been able to make a caption appear using "caption" or "mapframe-caption". It is used on the testcases page at "Seville, Spain (Q8717,Q29)", but no caption is displayed. Does anyone have any insight? Is this a broken feature, or one that is not supposed to work, or something else? – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 15:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Jonesey95}} FWIW this DOES appear to work on the [[Module:infobox mapframe|Module]] implementation... See [[Keijō Shrine]] where I was able to add a caption with {{para|mapframe-caption}}. And LITERALLY as I was typing this I figured out what is going on... When using the Module you do the following:
<pre>
| image     = {{#invoke:Infobox mapframe|auto}}
| caption   = {{#invoke:Infobox mapframe|autocaption}}
</pre>
:I'll bet you money that if you trace the code, the {{code|args.caption}} is only used by the autocaption function. So when you use the template version of this, it just gets ignored since the template calls {{mlx|Infobox mapframe|main}}. Now whether that is a bug? Working as designed? In need of updating? I don't really know. But I will say it's another reason for my current project which is removing calls to {{tl|Infobox mapframe}} that can be replaced by the Infobox's builtin call to the Module. Hope that helps! --'''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 16:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

== Auto hide marker if shape? ==

So I'm in the process of converting a lot of pages from using {{para|map/module/image|{{tlc|Infobox mapframe}}}} to using the [[Module:Infobox mapframe]] call that is built into the infobox. (For example see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vuka_(river)&diff=prev&oldid=1320475634 this edit]). 

The issue I am running into is the following, and this is a bit hard to explain so bare with me... {{tl|Infobox river}} has {{para|mapframe-marker|water}} hardcoded. So when I convert (as I did in the diff above), I have to manually check for the presence of a ''shape'' (I think that's the technical term for the blue line that shows up on the mapframe on [[Vuka (river)]]). If that blue line is present, I don't want to show the mapframe-marker so I have to add {{para|mapframe-point|none}} to override the settings in {{tl|Infobox river}}. 

My question is... Is there someway to change the call to [[Module:Infobox mapframe]] to automatically hide the marker if a shape is present? Is what I'm describing already avaliable? If not, is it feasible to add? Thanks in advance! - '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 22:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

:mapframe-point = none should be doing that, but I'm not sure why you'd want to remove the point marker by default. In case of rivers, it usually points to some important feature like a source or a mouth, which shouldn't be a bad thing to show on the map. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 21:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
:I setup such an example in the template sandbox, it then removes the point as seen in the testcases. Regs, [[User:The Equalizer|The Equalizer]] ([[User talk:The Equalizer|talk]]) 21:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|Joy}} The issue I have found with doing that in the past is that if there is no shape AND you remove the point, the map goes nuts... Removing the point on a case by case basis definitely works. But making that the default in the infobox code would be very problematic. '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 23:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Agreed, thanks. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 07:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

== Brisbane ==

I just tried to add {{para|mapframe|yes}} to {{tl|infobox settlement}} on [[Brisbane]], but it choked and showed [[null island]].

At the same time, using {{para|image_map|{{tl|infobox mapframe}}}} does work.

Why is this happening? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 21:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

:Brisbane isn't using Infobox Settlement, but {{tlx|Infobox Australian place}} - Mapframe isn't fully integrated there as per [[Wikipedia:Mapframe maps in infoboxes]], the template has different parameters to display maps, I see @[[User:Zackmann08]] has done some edits to add mapframe functionality but doesn't look standard. Regs, [[User:The Equalizer|The Equalizer]] ([[User talk:The Equalizer|talk]]) 23:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|Joy}} I think {{u|The Equalizer}} is onto something. The immediate issue is that Brisbane is using {{tl|Infobox Australian place}}... Which while a ''wrapper'' for {{tl|Infobox settlement}} still has '''a ton''' of added customizations that manipulate a lot of the parameters that are passed to settlement. I bet this has something to do with [[Module:Australian place map]] manipulating the coordinates. I really don't have the mental capacity to dive into this right now... But if I were you, as an experiment I would go to {{tl|Infobox Australian place/sandbox}} and remove all mentions of [[Module:Australian place map]]. Then try displaying the sandbox version on [[Brisbane]] with {{para|mapframe|yes}} and see what you get... That is how I would attempt to debug the issue. '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 23:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Hmm. The local map module is only handling the various {{tl|Location map}} wrapping, not mapframe.
:::The only main mapframe parameter that template now overrides is:
:::: {{tq|match pre-existing template behaviour by suppressing point marker on area features}}
:::: {{para|mapframe-point|none}}
:::So that's actually a similar problem as what we discussed recently - if the shape is missing in any way, that infobox will screw up normal point rendering. I'll bring this up on talk there. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 07:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

== an automatic zoom failure ==

At [[Brtonigla]], the mapframe is zoomed all the way in to 20m, but the input should be area_total_km2 = 32.9. @[[User:Hike395|Hike395]] any idea? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 21:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

:I see a recent edit by @[[User:Zackmann08]] adding <code>|mapframe-shape=yes</code> to {{tlx|Infobox settlement}}, which seems to force the zoom level to level 19. If <code>|mapframe-shape=no</code> is added it reverts back to zoom value 10. Regs, [[User:The Equalizer|The Equalizer]] ([[User talk:The Equalizer|talk]]) 23:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
::Absolutely looks to be caused by my change. But why '''ON EARTH''' does the presence of a shape change the default zoom level!? Can this be easily fixed? If not we will need to revert my change to {{tl|infobox settlement}} as this is definitely not an intended consequence... ({{ping|The Equalizer}} thank you for the ping!) '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 23:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
:::I went ahead and reverted my change ''for now''. This affects way too many pages to leave in place, waiting on a fix... That being said, would really like to see this fixed so we can restore the change I made. '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 23:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
::::I will investigate, but I am not optimistic.
::::To answer Zackmann's question --- if you want mapframe to correctly display a shape or line, there is no way for any Wikipedia module or template to set the center or zoom of the map. All of the information on the line/shape is derived from OpenStreetMap (not Wikidata), and the Kartographer must "take over" the zoom to display the line or shape. Syncing of data between OpenStreetMap and Wikidata is hindered both by license incompatibility and the lack of stability of identifiers on the OpenStreetMap side. This is almost impossible to fix. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 00:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{u|hike395}} appreciate you investigating. There seems to be an inconsistency between how the Template version displays and how the Module version displays with the same parameters listed. The template autoloads the shape while the module does not. That is ''really'' what would be helpful to resolve. In any case, you understand this far better than I and I appreciate your help! '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 01:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::I haven't seen such a difference. I find testing with {{tl|Infobox mapframe}} to be the same as testing with [[Module:Infobox mapframe]] main() function. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 01:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Hmm. So full disclosure {{u|Hike395}} this is probably due to my not understanding stuff... But for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Altteureu_Airfield&diff=1321026596&oldid=1304879965 this edit] resulted in the loss of the mapframe shape... and I don't understand why. Is it something in the way {{tl|Infobox military installation}} calls the module? Any help greatly appreciated!
:::::::Just a follow up, I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_military_installation&diff=1321029160&oldid=1321028361 this change] to Infobox military installation which made the problem go away, but I still don't understand why the issue happened in the first place. [[Template:Infobox mapframe]] seems to be automatically getting the shape while [[Module:Infobox mapframe]] seems NOT to automatically get the shape per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Altteureu_Airfield&diff=1321026596&oldid=1304879965 this edit] with the previous incarnation of Infobox military installation... Again any help is greatly appreciated! --'''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 06:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::Okay, but the shape linked from that Wikidata item is {{OSM relation|6466287|6466287}} and it did not get rendered.
:::::Is it because there is no back link from OSM to Wikidata on the relation? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 07:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::It's worse than that. Kartographer doesn't use Wikidata to lookup OSM objects. It searches OSM for an object ''that is labeled with the Wikidata qid''. In the case of [[Brtonigla]], that's Q991426, which is connected to {{OSM relation|n|87267602|87267602}}, which is a point in the middle of the town. That's why you get zoom=19 when you ask for a shape -- it's just a point.
::::::This is a big problem which we cannot fix as Wikipedia editors -- this is all in the Kartographer extension, out of our control. Starting a more general discussion about this, below. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 08:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Okay, but in this case we can definitely make the correction in the map data. Our articles, bound to the Wikidata QID, describe both the village and its surrounding municipality, so do we have to move the QID from the node 87267602 to surrounding relation 6466287. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 13:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Mind, I do understand that this order of lookups in Kartographer is faulty from our perspective. It parses OSM's Wikidata references and treats them as primary the source of truth, instead of the other way around. It should definitely be fixed to parse those Wikidata references, and then recurse into them to actually determine whether they're in sync. And then when they're not, it should use Wikidata to pick the primary one. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 13:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::::BTW, on this note, I went looking if there's other tooling that we could use to work around this deficiency in Kartographer.
::::::::I found [[d:OpenStreetMap#Mix'n'match catalogs]], but the reports there aren't up to date.
::::::::There's a question from @[[User:Robby|Robby]] at [[d:User talk:Reinheitsgebot#Mix'n'match report pages not updated since 4th quarter 2022]] but there's no answer. @[[User:Magnus Manske|Magnus Manske]], can this be fixed? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 15:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

== Rendering of shapes and lines in mapframe is unreliable ==

All of the shape/line problems editors are finding recently in mapframe (e.g., [[#Brisbane]], [[#an automatic zoom failure]], [[Template talk:Infobox road#mapframe implementation]], [[Template talk:Infobox UK place#Mapframe]], [[WP:VPT#Map problem at the bottom of University of Georgia Infobox]], [[WP:VPT#Road maps seem broken]]) is due to the fragility of Kartographer. The extension relies on OpenStreetMap to render shapes/lines correctly. AFAICT, there is no code we can write on the Wikipedia side that can check to make sure the shape/line data is sane. Having shapes or lines on (without points) in an infobox leads to [[null island]] problems (maps being rendered at 0N 0E) or to insane zooms. Conversely, when we render a point, we can force the map to be centered on a point that is specified by an editor at either en-WP or Wikidata. The zoom for a point can also be set by WP editors. 

I don't think the using default OSM shapes/lines without somehow setting center and zoom in an infobox is tenable. There are a number of ways to proceed: I'm hoping we can discuss and come to a consensus.
# Use OSM shape/lines by default in an infobox: when we find a problem, fix it at OpenStreetMap.
# Always render mapframe using the center and zoom specified at en-WP: if the shape or line is outside of the map, just render a map with no marker, shape, or line.
# Allow editors to opt-out of rendering the shape/line at an article if there is a problem. An parameter to an infobox can either turn off shape/line, or turn off the mapframe entirely.
# By default, use center/zoom from en-WP. Editors can opt-in for shape/line rendering on an article-by-article, which makes sure that it is sane.
There may be other solutions, also. What do editors think?

{{pinging|Joy|Zackmann08|Jonesey95|Redrose64|The Equalizer|Hooman Mallahzadeh}}. Will also notify VPT and WikiProjects. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 09:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC) Also {{ping|Hooman Mallahzadeh}} — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 09:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

:The capability of overriding "OSM shape" by "a collection of coordinates existing on Wikidata item" may be a good solution. That is, the shape is rendered locally from Wikipedia, even though the map is from OSM. This way, wrong OSM shape can be corrected easily on Wikipedia. The zoom and center problems can be computed easily by a few codes locally on Wikipedia. [[User:Hooman Mallahzadeh|Hooman Mallahzadeh]] ([[User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh|talk]]) 10:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
::this duplicates a huge amount of effort across communities. Ppl say “a lot” but relatively, this happens not so often and it has probably caused more”bad data” to be found and corrected, than it has created. Just fix the problems and stop thinking en.wp can do everything better than anyone else.. —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 10:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:::To avoid
:::{{tqb|duplicates a huge amount of effort across communities.}}
:::We can apply temporary Wikidata rendering that overrides OSM for fast solution of Wikipedia, then a robot moves these coordinates from Wikidata to OSM and clears that from Wikidata after 1 day. Finally we have only OSM coordinates. Please note that OSM renders these coordinates by "Wikidata id". This is only a proposal. [[User:Hooman Mallahzadeh|Hooman Mallahzadeh]] ([[User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh|talk]]) 12:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
::::To avoid 
::::{{tqb|it has probably caused more”bad data” to be found and corrected, }}
::::maybe this robot needs some human supervision and acceptance before this final move. A Human supervisor makes the final decision to whether 1- create a new shape by Wikidata id or 2- change the existing shape by the same Wikidata id. [[User:Hooman Mallahzadeh|Hooman Mallahzadeh]] ([[User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh|talk]]) 12:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::This is a scenario of [[Synchronization (computer science)|synchronization]] between Wikipedia with OpenStreetMap. [[User:Hooman Mallahzadeh|Hooman Mallahzadeh]] ([[User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh|talk]]) 12:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::Synchronizing across OSM and Wikidata seems to already be a fragile process, because of licensing and lack of OSM key stability (see [[d:Wikidata:OpenStreetMap]]). That seems like an extraordinarily difficult problem: perhaps someone else is willing to try. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 14:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Overriding OSM data has already been implemented on [[Wikimedia Commons]]. For example see [[Interstate 19]] which uses [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data:Interstate_19.map this map]. Therefore this inconsistency between OSM and Wikipedia nowadays exist typically.
:::::::I propose to use the same scenario for "wrong OSM shapes", without any synchronization. [[User:Hooman Mallahzadeh|Hooman Mallahzadeh]] ([[User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh|talk]]) 08:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
:I'm not sure this is all the same bug. With Brisbane, we didn't get 0/0 after we turned on the shape, we got it after we disabled point rendering and there was no shape.
:Our modules do currently check for the availability of shape data, so we could conceivably make some regression checks in our code.
:For example, if the caller request explicitly or implicitly requires a shape, but there is no shape and no point, we can detect that and error out nicely instead of passing bad input to Kartographer and not detecting a 0/0. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 13:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
::This is the same bug --- if an infobox has coordinates, and a point is rendered, it passes the coordinates to Kartographer ([[Module:Infobox mapframe#L-431|line 431]] of [[Module:Infobox mapframe]]). If you turn off the point, there is no communication of the coordinates.
::Let me re-iterate. There is no way to check for a shape in OSM from a Template or Module. That requires calling the [https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Overpass_API Overpass API at OSM]. I believe Kartographer can do that because it is a MediaWiki extension. This is the problem.
::I'm happy to attempt a bug fix on the WP side, but I'm not a Wiki developer, so I can't fix Kartographer. If someone else wants to try, they are certainly welcome. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 14:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Oh, I see the reason for the confusion now. I'm saying Brisbane Wikidata entry [[d:Q34932]] had no [[d:Property:P402]] at all. That's the part that we can check. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 14:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
::::We already check for P402 (it's stored as <code>hasOsmRelationId</code> in the Module code at [[Module:Infobox mapframe#L-241|line 241]], and is "or"ed with P3896 at [[Module:Infobox mapframe#L-243|line 243]], then checked at [[Module:Infobox mapframe#L-358|line 358]]). P402 is the result of a different manual process that attempts to reconcile Wikidata with OSM. But Kartographer doesn't use P402, so this is an unreliable method for telling whether there is a shape/line that can be sanely rendered. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 14:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::If there is any way to check for 0' 0' being returned as the coordinates for the map, we should check for that and display an error message and a tracking category. I have no idea if that is possible. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 14:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::Sorry to be a [[Grumpy Cat|naysayer]], but as far as I can tell, the coordinates of the final rendered map is only known to Kartographer. [[Module:Infobox mapframe]] simply invokes Kartographer with some inputs and does not have access to Kartographer internals. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 14:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
{{od|6}} I think I now understand what {{U|Joy}} is saying, which is actually going beyond what the code currently does. If the map is shape/line-only and there is no P402 (and no P3896 and no coordinates) then simply refuse to render the map. That seems reasonable: I can try to mock that up at the Module sandbox. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 14:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

:Yes! Thank you :) --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 15:12, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:I propose an additional parameter named "isOSMVerified" at Wikidata which is used to verifiy the state of OSM map shape. This parameter has "null" value by default, but can be set to "true" or "false" by editors. Then, Wikipedia shows maps only when this parameter is set to "true". [[User:Hooman Mallahzadeh|Hooman Mallahzadeh]] ([[User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh|talk]]) 15:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
::It's a valid idea, but I think that's equivalent to the logical OR of P402 and P3896. If you'd like, you can propose this over at Wikidata. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 15:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
::Additionally, I propose to fetch "zoom" and "shape" and "size" settings of mapframe from Wikidata. Which makes it universal between all editions of Wikipedia. [[User:Hooman Mallahzadeh|Hooman Mallahzadeh]] ([[User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh|talk]]) 15:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Please go ahead and propose this at Wikidata. If it gains acceptance and usage, we can use those settings here. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 16:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Thank you :) [[User:Hooman Mallahzadeh|Hooman Mallahzadeh]] ([[User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh|talk]]) 16:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::I proposed that [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Creating_an_entry_for_state_of_OpenStreetMaps here]. Thanks again. [[User:Hooman Mallahzadeh|Hooman Mallahzadeh]] ([[User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh|talk]]) 16:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

===Possible solution===
{{Idea}} I think there's an even better thing to do, that is a combination of Joy's idea and my idea (2), above. [[Module:Infobox mapframe#L-200|Line 200]] of the module checks for coordinates (both locally and at Wikidata) and returns no map if there are no coordinates. That means there are always coordinates available. In [[Module:Infobox mapframe/sandbox#L-455|the sandbox]], if there is only shape/line being displayed and there is no OSM linked at Wikidata, I forced the center to match those coordinates. You can see that fixes at least one null island problem in the [[Template:Infobox mapframe/testcases#Point suppressed, no line/shape_data_on_Wikidata|test cases]]. What do editors think of this? {{pinging|Joy|Zackmann08|Jonesey95}} — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 16:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

:Ahhh! Woke up to ALL the notifications. Gonna be honest, this is largely over my head... I'll try to catch up on the discussion that happened overnight my time, but mostly just glad editors smarter than me are working on a solution! {{smiley}} '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 16:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:I read [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AComparePages&page1=Module%3AInfobox+mapframe&page2=Module%3AInfobox+mapframe%2Fsandbox] and it makes sense.
:I do wonder if we should be using some form of logging more here, because even as we go through all sorts of these edge cases, we're still sort of flying blind. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 16:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
::I can certainly add tracking to the "forced centering" and the "no coordinates" case. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 16:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:::{{Implemented}} I think this proposed change will make things strictly better (i.e., fix a number of null island problems), so I went ahead and promoted it to main. It may not fix all of the problems, so let's keep an eye out for more issues, and we can continue the discussion if necessary. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 19:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Hike395|Hike395]]  Hi, [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P6592 OpenStreetMap zoom level (P6592)] is for OSM zoom. So if you think it is good, would you please implement zoom level like this:
::::::if user-mapframe-zoom
::::::elseif Wikidata-zoom
::::::else default value.
::::This makes zoom settings universal and needs fewer lines for zoom setting at Wikipedia.
::::I requested an entry for "shape-validity" entry at Wikidata.
::::Thanks, [[User:Hooman Mallahzadeh|Hooman Mallahzadeh]] ([[User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh|talk]]) 04:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::The same scenario for fetching "mapframe-marker" parameter form Wikidata.

:::I had a look at [[:Category:Pages using infobox mapframe with forced centering]] and the first one was already interesting - it's just a call to the template with point=none, but one which renders a shape. Presumably the issue here is that we don't have a relation ID at [[d:Q6474697]] to properly reference that shape, and depend on Kartographer's inverse logic to find it? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 07:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Joy|Joy]] In my opinion, there is no need for using Wikidata to solve the problem. We should just use «intermediate maps» from [[Wikimedia Commons]], such maps contain all needed settings also. I mean if OSM has wrong data, then easily and rapidly create a correct map at WikiCommons and use that. Just the same as [[Interstate 19]] article which uses [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data:Interstate_19.map this map] from WikiCommons. I should note that such maps contain all required data e.g. zoom, marker, etc. [[User:Hooman Mallahzadeh|Hooman Mallahzadeh]] ([[User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh|talk]]) 08:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::This solution has the benefit of "local data" for Wikipedia and needs no 1 day delay. So Wikipedia should encourage using local "WikiCommon maps" over outside OSM maps. [[User:Hooman Mallahzadeh|Hooman Mallahzadeh]] ([[User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh|talk]]) 09:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::That has the obvious downside of forking the data and then having to maintain that. It doesn't sound like a problem for a few cases, esp. of shapes that rarely change, but it doesn't really scale because there are shapes that do change.
:::::Even if we reduce the issue to just one-off copy&pastes and quick fixes, it still means an editor effectively taking responsibility for a snapshot of the data generated by others. It's like PNG or SVG maps all over again. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 09:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::I also propose to fetch maps of all existing articles from "OSM" to "local Wikimedia commons maps". I mean all Wikipedia articles (e.g., cities, roads, shops, etc.) should have a corresponding "Wikicommons map item" in WikimediaCommons that are initially fetched from OSM, but users can manipulate them easily. 
::::::This way, a "WikiCommons map item" would automatically be created for all roads (e.g. [[A308 road]]) that is a point initially, but editors would find that item easily and make a complete road.
::::::This reduces the inconsistencies Wikipedia and OSM.
::::::Finally, I think updating OSM is not the duty of Wikipedia, if there is a problem at OSM, then just don't care about that. [[User:Hooman Mallahzadeh|Hooman Mallahzadeh]] ([[User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh|talk]]) 09:51, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::::About 
:::::::{{tqb|there are shapes that do change.}}
:::::::We can use fetching tool from "OSM map" to "WikiCommons map" that do this automatically, for this type of maps. [[User:Hooman Mallahzadeh|Hooman Mallahzadeh]] ([[User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh|talk]]) 09:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Forking everything should have the result of {{tq|[reducing] the inconsistencies [between] Wikipedia and OSM}}? I'm afraid that sounds plainly contradictory to me. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 13:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Every solution might have advantages and disadvantages, we should make a trade-off between them. If changing something online is hard, then we can take a local snapshot, correct that and then render the corrected local snapshot.
::::::::Local maps of roads, rivers, buildings and cities and so on (like [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data:Interstate%2019.map this map]) have the advantage of fast and convenient update and drawback of inconsistency. This tradeoff should be done. [[User:Hooman Mallahzadeh|Hooman Mallahzadeh]] ([[User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh|talk]]) 15:25, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
=== Vulnerability against vandalism ===
{{ping|Joy}} I think another problem with existing OSM scenario is that they are vulnerable against vandalism. If someone intentionally or unintentionally updates OSM of an article at site https://www.OpenStreetMap.org in a wrong way, Wikipedia would need at least 1 day to correct it. This issue can be solved by local maps. [[User:Hooman Mallahzadeh|Hooman Mallahzadeh]] ([[User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh|talk]]) 08:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

:First of all, the sync isn't at least 1 day away, it varies. But more generally, being susceptible to vandalism is the case with Wikipedia as well. Please see [[Vandalism on Wikipedia]] etc. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 08:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Joy|Joy]] Hi again. In [[London]] article, such vandalism has occurred, and the shape has disappeared, and without [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London&diff=1321608605&oldid=1321605208 this edit], we would suffer bug for OSM. I can't correct the issue at OSM site. If you guide me, I would appreciate you. Thanks. [[User:Hooman Mallahzadeh|Hooman Mallahzadeh]] ([[User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh|talk]]) 10:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Just to add, the shape is now working on the London article. BTW, the shapes are kept on local Wiki servers but are synced to pull updates from OSM. Regs, [[User:The Equalizer|The Equalizer]] ([[User talk:The Equalizer|talk]]) 10:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

== road junction shapes missing ==

I just converted {{tl|infobox road junction}} to invoking the module, but for some reason {{para|mapframe-shape|yes}} isn't getting the shapes shown. Am I missing something? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 21:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:Is there an example where the shapes previously worked? Everything seems fine to me. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 21:32, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
::[[Piccadilly Circus]] used to show a shape. I think [[Jane Byrne Interchange]] did too. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 21:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Are you sure? I used [[Piccadilly Circus]] as a test case and reverted your changes, and there was no shape there. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 23:20, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
::::I've tried going back to the old {{tl|Infobox road junction}} code as of May 2024, adding {{para|coord}} and {{para|wikidata}} to that old code, and reverting [[Module:Infobox mapframe]] back to that date. Nothing I've done can make a shape show up for either [[Piccadilly Circus]] or [[Jane Byrne Interchange]]. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 23:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::The reason I know I saw it at Piccadilly is because it was the first item in [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox road junction]] and the one I checked first prior to making changes, to have a baseline.
:::::I went looking for the shape on OSM, but I can't find one now, either, which is confusing.
:::::On the other hand, I did find https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/13411997 for the Jane Byrne Interchange. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 06:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::There is a bug in the parameter logic that I'm working on fixing. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 10:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::::BTW, just so it's clear, those two are fixed now. Thanks for that. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 20:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

== frame-coordinates broken where frame-lat/long work ==

[[Template:Infobox mapframe/testcases#frame-lat/frame-long vs frame-coordinates]] is showing the deprecated parameters functional, but the new one with an error. What's wrong there? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 21:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:The test case was broken: the latitude and longitude were in the wrong order, so the latitude was out of range. Fixed the test case. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 23:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
::Ohh, nice, so some parser that came before {{tq|<mapframe>: Either both "latitude" and "longitude" parameters should be supplied or neither of them}} just removed the invalid latitude? Can we make that one error out instead of just pruning the bad data? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 06:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

== Glitch ==

[[Statue of Edward Colston]] shows that a bunch of strip markers give errors in [[Module:Mapframe]] in {{tl|Infobox artwork}}. Is that a problem in the wikitext of the article? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 01:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
:{{Fixed}} -- someone misused {{para|coord}} to hold an embedded infobox. Fixed to use {{para|module}} instead. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 02:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

== Fixed argument handling ==

{{ping|Joy|Zackmann08}} There was previously a bug in the argument handling that may have confused you both. The code is now fixed.

In the previous code, when you asked for {{para|shape|on}}, it would sometimes shut off the shape! It would check for OSM data over at Wikidata and turn off the shape if it wasn't there. That's clearly not correct.

The current state of the default code (without asking for anything via {{para|wikidata}}, {{para|shape}}, {{para|line}}, {{para|point}} or {{para|marker}}) is the following:
* If there is a local coordinate given or if there is no OSM data in Wikidata, display a point marker
* If there is no local coordinate given or if there is OSM data in Wikidata, display shape/line
This is the simplest default that was still close to {{U|Evad37}}'s original behavior. When you say {{para|wikidata|yes}} or {{para|shape|yes}} or {{para|line|yes}}, the corresponding shapes will always be displayed, regardless of local coordinates or OSM data.

Notice that means that sometimes it will display both a marker and shape/lines on the same map, by default. This is a new behavior. This new behavior should mean you generally won't need to set {{para|wikidata}}, {{para|shape}}, or {{para|line}} in an infobox. If there is shape/line data available, it should generally be displayed. The only reason you would set, e.g., {{para|wikidata|yes}} is if you want to display the shape/lines even if the OSM data in Wikidata is missing. Hopefully this is a rare case. 

Hope this helps makes the module more comprehensible. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 11:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

:Good to hear!
:That last sentence was a bit confusing, though. So the meaning of wikidata=yes is more akin to wikidata=ignore && kartographer-osm-lookup=yes? :) --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 12:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
::There is no direct OSM lookup, as far as I know. Here is what I mean:
::*If you don't set {{para|wikidata}}, only shapes/lines that have OSM relation ID in Wikidata are shown
::*If you set {{para|wikidata}}, '''all''' shapes/lines are shown, regardless of OSM relation ID (I guess "wikidata" is now a misnomer -- it means "both shapes and lines"). — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 12:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Yeah, I mean the implicit letting of Kartographer to look up and draw whatever it found in OSM regardless of WD P402 value. Right?
:::In any case, we should definitely rename the parameter, because this is too convoluted for its own good. The parameter name needs to communicate the intent :) --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 13:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Hike395}} that is AWESOME news! Thanks for all your hard work on this! -'''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 16:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, when {{para|wikidata|yes}}, Kartographer will look up and draw whatever it finds in OSM regardless of WD P402 value. Perhaps can rename it {{para|geometry}} ? that implies a superset of shapes and lines. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 16:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|Hike395}} still confused about something... If you go to [[Sovetsk, Kirov Oblast]] and change it to use {{tl|Infobox Russian inhabited locality/sandbox}} the shape still disappears unless you add {{para|mapframe-wikidata|yes}}. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AComparePages&page1=Template%3AInfobox+Russian+inhabited+locality&page2=Template%3AInfobox+Russian+inhabited+locality%2Fsandbox difference] between the sandbox and live version is the use of the module that comes with {{tl|infobox settlement}} versus using {{tl|Infobox mapframe}}. I'm probably missing something but I ''thought'' this was what you were saying was now fixed? Help me understand... - '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 19:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Zackmann08}} This is working as intended, as far as I can tell:
:::::::*The infobox has {{para|coordinates}} set.
:::::::*The wikidata entry for Sovetsk ([[d:Q196369]]) does not have an OSM Relation ID set.
:::::::Therefore, the logic (described above) uses a point marker and not a shape, which is what you are seeing. If you use call to infobox mapframe with no parameters (<code><nowiki>{{Infobox mapframe}}</nowiki></code>), then you are only getting the qid. In that case,
:::::::*No {{para|coordinates}} are set.
:::::::*Still no OSM Relation ID set.
:::::::*Coordinates are available at Wikidata.
:::::::And therefore you would get both a point (because no OSM Relation ID) and a shape (because no local coordinates) and you get
:::::::{{Infobox mapframe|id=Q196369}}
:::::::Local coordinates turn off shapes without OSM Relation IDs, Wikidata coordinates do not. This has been true at least since 2020. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 00:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|Hike395}} Gotcha. Thank you! This is just me '''''still''''' not fully understanding the intricacies of this module. '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 00:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Well, I don't fully understand the logic behind the original design. I was just reluctant to make major changes because it's used on so many pages. What the most recent edit did was not turn off shapes given local coordinates when there ''is'' an OSM Relation ID. It used to be that local coordinates turned off ''all'' shapes by default.
:::::::::One possible different default behavior for the template is to always display a marker and always let Kartographer display shape/lines. That would be easier to use, and you could turn off markers/lines/shapes if you don't want them. We could do this: it's possible that {{U|Evad37}} was being too conservative, and it's ok to always turn on shapes/lines because Kartographer will do the right thing. It's also possible that we don't understand the pitfalls and turning {{para|wikidata|yes}} still generates lots of errors. I'm just not sure. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 01:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I think the code today is at least consistent/rational:
::::::::::*If there is no OSM Relation ID, then there may be no shape to show, so we better turn on a marker to be sure something is in the map.
::::::::::*If there is a local coordinate, then an editor may be expecting to see a marker at that location.
::::::::::*If there is an OSM Relation ID, then might as well show the shape because we know it's there and is hopefully not insane.
::::::::::*If there is no local coordinate, assuming we don't want to show a marker, then we should show the shape to show something.
::::::::::It's all contingent on the assumption that if there's no local coordinate then we shouldn't show a marker. If we want to always show a marker, then we can always show the shape/line, too. But that's very different from what the code does today. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 03:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Yeah I think local data was supposed to always override foreign data per those RFCs from 2018 and 2020. But I doubt anybody ever wanted ''point'' data completely overriding ''shape'' data.
::::::::::If we have local shape data, that should still override foreign shape data. But that's a scenario that seems to rarely ever happen, probably because it's so much more unwieldy compared to just using OSM shapes. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 10:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::I would say a qualifier is needed, because just "geometry" does not illustrate the mechanism at all, and that's a significant distinction.
::::::Maybe something like {{para|geometry-greedy}} or {{para|osm-greedy}} would be more appropriate, to communicate the intent of greedily accessing more data from OSM than there is in Wikidata references. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 09:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not sure people will understand "greedy". How about {{para|all-geometry}} or {{para|all_geometry}}? — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 13:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I don't think they will understand the implications of "all", either. We need to communicate that there's an aspect of uncertainty and risk to it, because a lot of people won't check the docs and just say "all? sure!". --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 15:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
===Default behavior===
Whether to change the default behavior hinges on the following expectation. The canonical example for this template is
:<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">{{Infobox mapframe|id=Q100}}</syntaxhighlight>
What do people expect to see when they do this? The map on the left or the map on the right?
{|
|-
|{{Infobox mapframe|id=Q100}}
|{{Infobox mapframe|id=Q100|point=yes}}
|}
The map on the left has been the behavior for the last 7 years. It might be a surprising change to start to display the map on the right. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 13:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

:If it's a surprise, it's a good surprise: you do want to know where exactly downtown Boston is (''meet you in Boston'' doesn't mean some ocean island that belongs to the City of Boston). It also correlates the position on the pushpin map with the position on this map. People put a lot of work into finding these coordinates, and they probably mean more that these artificial (official) boundaries. Now, when it comes to style and colors, I'd like to have that red outline thinner and/or somewhat translucent, and the marker color should be in the reds, if possible. These violet-blue and red colors do not go well together, imo. [[User:Ponor|Ponor]] ([[User talk:Ponor|talk]]) 14:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
::The trouble is that there are often smaller places where it's not clear that the point is supposed to mean something. Sometimes also it just plain doesn't - it's a point that vaguely matches the location on a higher-level pushpin map that nobody ever checked against a zoomed in map.
::I agree that the line and marker color combination doesn't really make a lot of sense, but again, mostly because it's not inherently clear why they're different.
::Making the default marker red would probably be the safe choice. OSM also uses the same reddish color for a small circle attached to a larger shape, I think. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 15:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
:Counterexample to the one above: 
::<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">{{Infobox mapframe|id=Q14935287}}</syntaxhighlight>
:Yes, [[Skye, Victoria]] is no Boston, but we have a great number of articles about minor places like this, so the page views add up. Maps without and with a marker:
{|
|-
|{{Infobox mapframe|id=Q14935287}}
|{{Infobox mapframe|id=Q14935287|point=yes}}
|}
:Hike395 said, "The map on the left has been the behavior for the last 7 years. It might be a surprising change to start to display the map on the right." Quite so. The marker location is random and there is no logical place to put it, as Skye has no town. Unless someone is volunteering to sort through all the infobox maps and turn off point display on those where it's not required, I think the only realistic solution at this stage of the game is showing the marker as opt-in behaviour.
:I'm in agreement with Ponor and Joy regarding the marker's look. The soft shadowy blue is very jarring when placed against the sharp-edged red border. At least make the marker colour similar to the polygon outline. In fact, I wonder if a simple disc- or dot-type marker would suffice, although the inverted-teardrop marker style is well recognised by readers thanks to its longstanding use by Google Maps.  [[User:This, that and the other|This, that and the other]] ([[User talk:This, that and the other|talk]]) 11:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
::It should be noted that the automatic zoom into the shape is actually working against us in these sorts of cases. I see almost nothing on that map, and on my desktop I had to click once to get into the large view where some labels appeared, which was at least better. Still, after that I had to click the zoom out button no less than 3 times to see that this is south of Melbourne. If I use the scroll wheel on my mouse to zoom out, the center of the zoomout actually depends on the (fairly random) location of the mouse pointer, and it can easily take me 4 scrolls to get to the Melbourne label. This isn't great. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 12:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
:::The Kartographer zoom in this case matches the default zoom computation. Here's what the Skye infobox map would look like without the shape:
{{Infobox mapframe|id=Q14935287|point=yes|wikidata=none|type=city|population=8088|area_km2=19}}
:::— [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 13:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Sorry, I didn't say that right. I didn't mean automatic zoom into the P402 shape per se, just the automatic zoom into the entity (be it point or shape or whatever), into the closely identifiable context. It doesn't have anything to do with the original marker question, but in general it's related to what people see. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 13:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

== Setting zoom level by Wikidata doesn't work ==

Hi, I set zoom level by P6592 for [[Tehran]] article at Wikidata in this https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3616 page but zoom doesn't change in the OSM of article. Please inspect. Thanks, [[User:Hooman Mallahzadeh|Hooman Mallahzadeh]] ([[User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh|talk]]) 15:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

:For [[Tehran]], this template displays a shape. The zoom is set by Kartographer to nicely frame the shape, which overrides the zoom set by Wikidata. If you wish to override the Kartographer zoom, please use {{para|zoom}} directly. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 02:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, please do something to change mapframe-marker by Wikidata item, the same as zoom level. Thanks, [[User:Hooman Mallahzadeh|Hooman Mallahzadeh]] ([[User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh|talk]]) 16:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

:As far as I know, there is no Wikidata property for mapframe marker. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 02:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Hike395|Hike395]] Hi and thank you for your response. In my opinion, the correct implementation is that User and Wikidata zoom should have privilege over Kartographer zoom and override that.
::Also, I think we need some new Wikidata item for mapframe-marker which overrides default one but is overridden by user one. The same should happen for Wikidata-shape.
::Implementing that should not be difficult. Thanks, [[User:Hooman Mallahzadeh|Hooman Mallahzadeh]] ([[User talk:Hooman Mallahzadeh|talk]]) 04:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
:::I disagree about Wikidata taking precedence of Kartographer-- if Wikidata zoom overrides Kartographer zoom, you will potentially get odd zooming behaviors whose cause will be non-obvious to editors.
:::Re: new Wikidata item -- it's not a matter of implementation difficulty. You will need to get consensus at Wikidata for your new proposed properties. Once you've done that, it will be easy to implement. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 14:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

== Weird preview "bug"? ==

{{ping|Hike395}} I know you have a ton on your plate, but found something weird that I ''think'' might be related to your recent changes... If you preview an infobox with [[Module:Infobox mapframe]] and no coords, you get a nice preview message explaining why the mapframe isn't showing. However, if there is a defined caption, the caption shows up IN THE PREVIEW, but not when the page is saved... See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Zackmann08/sandbox&oldid=1322753653 this perm link]. If you edit that and preview it, you will see "SOME CAPTION" but when it is saved, the caption (rightly) doesn't show because there is no mapframe to caption. It would be great to suppress the caption or display a preview warning as well? Not sure if this was designed behavior or unintended consequence... - '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 23:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
:This behavior would be difficult to fix robustly, since it is not directly due to [[Module:Infobox mapframe]]: it's a basic behavior of {{tl|Infobox}} itself. Right now, you are putting the mapframe into {{para|image2}} and the caption into {{para|caption2}}. If {{para|image2}} is empty, then {{tl|Infobox}} automatically hides the contents of {{para|caption2}}. But in preview, the contents of {{para|image2}} is the warning message, which is non-empty, so the caption shows up.
:In order to fix it, you would have to make sure to feed exactly the same parameters to <code><nowiki>|auto</nowiki></code> that you do to <code><nowiki>|autocaption</nowiki></code>, for every invocation of [[Module:Infobox mapframe]]. We would then run the code twice, and suppress the caption when the preview gives an error. I'm quite skeptical that editors will remember to feed exactly the same parameters to both invocations, which would then lead to inconsistent previews.
:Given the burden that would place on editors who invoke [[Module:Infobox mapframe]], and the likelihood of inconsistent previews, I would suggest simply accepting that the caption is going to show up in preview mode. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 00:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|hike395}} thanks SO much for the explanation! I agree it is definitely not worth fixing! '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 01:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Zackmann08}} I just thought of a way to make the whole thing be more robust. We could make a function <code><nowiki>|autoWithCaption</nowiki></code>, and you only call it once, and it generates both the image and the caption, then stuffs into (e.g.) {{para|image2}}. This would eliminate the need to correctly repeat {{para|onByDefault}} twice and would fix this problem, also. But you'd have to go and find all of the uses of <nowiki><code>|auto</code></nowiki> and <nowiki><code>|autoCaption</code></nowiki> and replace them with <nowiki><code>|autoWithCaption</code></nowiki>. What do you think? — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 02:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
::::{{ping|hike395}} that sounds like an EXCELLENT idea! If you make the function, I will be happy to make the necessary changes to each page. From what I remember when we added the {{para|mapframe_args}} to Check for unknown params, there are only around 100 or so Infoboxes using mapframe. I'm sure it has gone up in the past month, but not much. 
::::{{Infobox settlement| name = Zacktown| mapframe = yes}}
::::With your new function, you might be able to fix a new issue that I found... If:
::::* you have a caption set in the infobox with {{para|mapframe-cation|....}}
::::* you have the mapframe explicitly turned on
::::* there is no mapframe to display
::::Result is you get a caption displayed, but no mapframe.... See the example of {{tl|infobox settlement}} on the right. 
::::{{tlx|Infobox settlement| name{{=}}Zacktown| mapframe{{=}}yes}}
::::I actually came across this with {{tl|Infobox trail}} where I had a caption set but it was displaying on pages with no mapframe so I had to remove the default caption. Based on your description, I ''think'' this would be resolved by your new implementation... '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 02:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, this idea would fix that. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 03:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::Let's do it! Let me know how I can help. '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 03:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
{{od|6}} {{Implemented}} It's ready for testing. Instead of
<pre>
| image2   = {{#invoke:Infobox mapframe|auto
  | onByDefault = {{#if:{{{map|}}}|no|yes}}
  | mapframe-marker = natural
  | mapframe-wikidata = yes
}}
| caption2 = {{#invoke:Infobox mapframe|autocaption
  | onByDefault = {{#if:{{{map|}}}|no|yes}}
  | mapframe-caption = Interactive map of {{PAGENAME}}
}}
</pre>
you would now combine all of the arguments together in one call, just for the image parameter:
<pre>
| image2   = {{#invoke:Infobox mapframe|autoWithCaption
  | onByDefault = {{#if:{{{map|}}}|no|yes}}
  | mapframe-marker = natural
  | mapframe-wikidata = yes
  | mapframe-caption = Interactive map of {{PAGENAME}}
}}
</pre>
Even though all tests pass, I would use caution. First try it out in a sandbox for an infobox that has test cases. Then make it go live for an infobox that doesn't have many tranclusions. Poke around and make sure it all works. When we're satisfied it works, you can then run around and convert many infoboxes. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 09:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

:Particularly after the cluster#$%& I just created with deprecated params, I will be sure to proceed with caution on this one... Thanks for making this happen! '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 16:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
::Testing it out with {{tl|Infobox climbing area}} and it definitely seems to work exactly as described... Going to keep testing a few more things but it looks great! '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 20:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Added to a few infoboxes and have yet to see an issue. Gonna let it sit for a day to see if any issues pop up. Then I will move forward converting others. '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 20:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
::::{{implemented}} {{ping|hike395}} There are a few that I left using the old code (see {{sl|insource:/invoke:Infobox mapframe/ -insource:/autoWithCaption/ -intitle:/\//|this search|ns10}}). Mostly because the switch would have been more complicated that I felt like taking on... So definitely keep the old functions but otherwise the vast majority ({{sl|insource:/invoke:Infobox mapframe/ insource:/autoWithCaption/ -intitle:/\//|nearly 100|ns10}}) are now using the new code! '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 16:53, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
=="No coordinate" errors==
Hello [[User:Zackmann08|Zackmann08]]! Not sure if this is connected to the above mentioned changes or just a coincidence but I'll mention it just in case. I fix script errors in articles & just started seeing "Category:Pages using infobox mapframe with missing coordinates" errors showing up. Previously I'd not seen one before this evening. Odd thing is, they are showing up on articles that don't even have the mapframe infobox. Like here: [[The Cliff Walk at Pourville]] & [[Une loge aux Théâtre Italiens]]. I do notice that both those are [[Template:Infobox artwork|Infobox artwork]]. Sorry if the problem is unrelated but it just struck me as an odd coincidence. Take care, [[User:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck|LooksGreatInATurtleNeck]] ([[User talk:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck|talk]]) 01:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
:[[User:LooksGreatInATurtleNeck]] hmmm. So the issue here is that the mapframe is on in the Infobox code, but there are no coordinates. {{ping|hike395}} does that category need a rework or is this just the nature of the beast? '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 02:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
::When I added error messages to [[Module:Infobox mapframe]], I decided to add warnings and a tracking category for the case where there are neither local nor Wikidata coordinates. This is a relatively common case, unfortunately, because mapframe is on by default for {{tl|Infobox artwork}}, which rarely have coordinates supplied. We can take one of several actions for this:
::#Ignore it and have thousands of pages show up in [[:Category:Pages using infobox mapframe with missing coordinates]]
::#Remove the tracking category and/or the warning message from [[Module:Infobox mapframe]]
::#Only turn on <code>mapframe</code> for {{tl|Infobox artwork}} if local coordinates are provided.
::#Add a "no_missing_cat" parameter to [[Module:Infobox mapframe]] which turns off tracking+warning for particlar infoboxes.
::What do other editors think is the best action to take? — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 05:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|hike395}} just a point of clarification... On your suggestion #3, we would need to check for {{property|P625}} as well correct? 
:::I'm leaning towards making the change for Infobox artwork, rather than for the module as a whole since '''at the moment''' the problem seems to lie with that Infobox, but I think we should document this (where? not sure...) because I doubt this will be the last we see of this. I know from the recent work I just did to implement the new {{code|autoWithCaption}} function you created that there are a number of infoboxes with {{para|mapframe|yes}} in the code. Those are going to have the same problem. So at the very least we need to document somewhere the fix to the issue. '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 06:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
::::I was just thinking local coordinates, but we could do {{property|P625}} as well. OTOH, #3 and #4 are completely equivalent if P625 is checked, since in either case, the only thing that is being turned off is the warning+tracking. That is, #4 would also apply per-infobox. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 07:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Why does this template invoke {{tl|infobox mapframe}} in the first place? The map and coordinates parameters appear in the documentation, but don't give any reason why they might be used. As noted by LooksGreatInATurtleNeck, whenever this template is used on a page, the preview of that page shows a warning that "Preview warning: Mapframe missing coordinates: not shown", which is very surprising and troublesome because there's apparently no way for a user of the template to fix it.
:::Why isn't #3 the obvious choice of action here? Errors are for corretable conditions that -- are, well, errors. Simply using the {{tl|infobox artwork}} template according to its documentation shouldn't burden the editor with a surprising and confusing error during preview, nor add every single page to a tracking category. -- [[User:Mikeblas|mikeblas]] ([[User talk:Mikeblas|talk]]) 23:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
:{{u|Zackmann08}} the bogus error message on preview also affects {{tl|infobox road}} and {{tl|Infobox historical event}}.   -- [[User:Mikeblas|mikeblas]] ([[User talk:Mikeblas|talk]]) 23:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|mikeblas}} can you clarify and link to an article where you are seeing a {{tq|bogus error message}}? Happy to look into it... '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 00:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Sure. Here you go:
:::* [[Self-portrait in a Velvet Dress]] is an example for {{tl|Infobox artwork}}; on preview, it shows "Preview warning: Mapframe missing coordinates: not shown".  Nobody editing this article knows what "mapframe" is, as it doesn't involve maps. Or coordinate locations, or anything of the sort.
:::* [[Prince Edward Island Route 5]] is an example for {{tl|Infobox road}}. Same thing, on preview. 
:::* [[8th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party]] is an example for {{tl|Infobox event}}. Same thing.
:::Have a look at [[:Category:Pages using infobox mapframe with missing coordinates]], which has thousands of examples of roads and events and artwork flagged for this bogus error.
:::I think {{tl|Infobox organization}} and {{tl|Infobox government agency}} are having problems, too.
:::Hope that helps. -- [[User:Mikeblas|mikeblas]] ([[User talk:Mikeblas|talk]]) 03:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
::::It sounds like the error message is not helpful. I will remove it. Should I also remove the tracking category? — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 04:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm torn on the category... It is technically correct, they are mostly pages that could benefit from having coordinates but at the same time a maintenance category with nearly 100,000 pages is not really helpful. So open to suggestions. '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 06:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::I think the problem is that we were printing a weird red message.
::::::We need to color that black as it's just a notice - a message that may be a serious warning in some cases and just a casual debug message in other cases.
::::::And the text was very crude:
::::::: {{tq|Mapframe missing coordinates: not shown}}
::::::We should also phrase it in a way that actual humans could understand it e.g.:
::::::: {{tq|No coordinates are specified, or inferred from the article, so no mapframe will be shown in the infobox.}}
::::::I think those two would make it fine. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 08:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Disagree with {{u|joy}} on the first point, 100% agree on the second one... 
:::::::I think as a {{tl|preview warning}} it should stay in red so that it grabs your attention as a warning should. Black text will blend in and not be seen or read. (pun not intended, but enjoyed nonetheless).
:::::::A better description is 10000% what is needed though! I would definitely be in favor or restoring the warning but with the exact text that Joy suggested. it is concise and explains exactly what is happening. If no infobox is needed or wanted, the warning can simply be ignored. But if the editor is/was expecting an infobox and doesn't get one, they now have a '''very''' clear message explaining (in my eyes) exactly why they are not getting one! Additionally that message only shows in preview so it doesn't actually affect the output. Great thinking! '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 08:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah but site-wide we don't know if it's a warning, that's the issue. If we can't conclusively say that it's a warning, we shouldn't push people to read it as a warning.
::::::::The problematic cases where people complained are completely plausible use cases - for places, missing point coordinates is probably a big enough of a deal, but for artworks it's really just an optional feature.
::::::::Maybe this just means that we should introduce a parameter like {{para|warnNotFoundByDefault|no}} to be used in {{tl|Infobox artwork}} and similar places. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 08:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::The error message certainly isn't helpful in the cases I've seen it. In those articles, no editor has invoked {{tl|infobox mapframe}}, and no editor wants to invoke it, either. Seems like {{tl|infobox mapframe}} is (could be) invoked by other templates, but in these cases it certainy is not. If it's not invoked, it's not used. If something is unused, why would it ''ever'' emit any kind of warning or error?
:::::I don't understand the problem it's trying to solve, though. What is it ''meant'' to indicate? Is the problem just that templates like {{tl|infobox artwork}} are invoking {{tl|infobox mapframe}} when they don't need to? -- [[User:Mikeblas|mikeblas]] ([[User talk:Mikeblas|talk]]) 15:25, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
:Any progress on this, {{u|hike395}} or {{u|Zackmann}}? [[:Category:Pages using infobox mapframe with missing coordinates]] is swollen with topics, almost all of which don't seem to have any actual problem that needs to be remedied. What is the point of adding topics to that template? When a topic shows up there, how should it be fixed? -- [[User:Mikeblas|mikeblas]] ([[User talk:Mikeblas|talk]]) 20:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
::Looks like "Zackmann" is really {{u|Zackmann08}}.  How confusing! Because their signature isn't actually their user name, I have to ping them again. -- [[User:Mikeblas|mikeblas]] ([[User talk:Mikeblas|talk]]) 20:48, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Mikeblas}} sorry that is such a confusion... [[Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Zackmann]] shows this really hasn't been much of an issue in the nearly 14 years I've had this type of signature (which is far from a rarity). I would have thought the redlink might have been a giveaway that you pinged the wrong user... Additionally, if you actually read this thread, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3AInfobox_mapframe&diff=1323948781&oldid=1323937203 I did respond below]...'''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 03:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
::::There does not seem to be a consensus of how to proceed (see below). I'm also busy IRL, so if the consensus is to do something complex, I'm hoping that someone else will implement it. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 12:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
::::The problem is that your signature doesn't match your username, not any red link. You must be doing that deliberately -- why?
::::The response you link asks more questions -- it isn't a solution, and doesn't answer the questions I pose above. And it's about the color and wording of the warning message, not solving the wide-spread problems the recent changes to these templates have caused. So I'm not sure why a response like {{tq|if you actually read this thread}} is necessary. Do you think it somehow promotes constructive engagement, or gets us closer to a solution? -- [[User:Mikeblas|mikeblas]] ([[User talk:Mikeblas|talk]]) 15:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::[[User:Mikeblas]] if you want to continue to clog this thread with complaints about my signature style go ahead. Seems pretty unhelpful to me. If you can point me to some policy my signature violates, I will '''immediately''' change it. As I'm fairly sure no such policy exists, I really don't understand what you are moaning about. There are plenty of users, including admins, whose signatures are not direct copies of their username. I've has this signature for nearly 14 years. You are the ONLY person to ever complain that it was a problem. '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 16:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
::::::Great! Now you know that it is a problem. But I'm still not sure why you have such a chip on your shoulder. 
::::::Let me know when you've got a minute to respond to my other questions. -- [[User:Mikeblas|mikeblas]] ([[User talk:Mikeblas|talk]]) [[User:Mikeblas|mikeblas]] ([[User talk:Mikeblas|talk]]) 18:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Mikeblas|Mikeblas]] Can we tolerate/ignore the category while we code the better inclusion criterion? Does a hidden tracking category actually affect readers in any way? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 12:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
:::It's mostly like a different angle on [[:Category:Articles missing geocoordinate data by country]], which also seems huge. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 12:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
:::I think the question should go the other way: Is there a reason the recent and problematic changes should not be reverted until a better inclusion criterion can be developed? Do the half-baked changes provide some useful benefit, even in their broken state? The huge amount of false-positives have rendered the tracking useless, and that should be addressed. -- [[User:Mikeblas|mikeblas]] ([[User talk:Mikeblas|talk]]) 15:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
::::"rendered the tracking useless" -- the tracking category did not previously exist before my edit, so there was nothing to "render useless". 
::::"half-baked" --- this kind of language and the unending pings is why I'm getting really tired of editing this Module. Other editors can fix this issue: I'm done here. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 16:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::The false positives have made the tracking category useless -- doesn't need to have existed before or not. Sorry to hear that you're not interested in cleaning this up. I'll see if I can get it figured out. 
:::::Note that you can [[Help:Notifications#Preferences_and_settings|turn off pings in your preferences page]]. -- [[User:Mikeblas|mikeblas]] ([[User talk:Mikeblas|talk]]) 18:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Well, yes, in this state the tracking category lists a bunch of articles that are missing coordinates, and therefore they're missing mapframe, but could well have it. It's not strange that a statistic related to a very common module is going to have a large number of false positives. I don't know what our benchmark is for what's a truly good tracking category. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 18:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
{{od|8}} Upon reflection, I think it was a mistake to add both a warning and tracking category:
* Per Mikeblas, editors of many of these articles are not realizing that they even have the option of having a mapframe, let alone that they need to add coordinates to get the mapframe.
* Per Zackmann08, a tracking category with 100,000 articles is not at all useful.
* I agree with Zackmann08 that any preview warning should be in red (because that is the standard across WP).
* Most importantly, I think {{tl|Infobox mapframe}} has been added to infoboxes just in case there is map data and no existing map. Failing silently is consistent with this optional approach. 
— [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 09:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

:Failing silently is fine when nobody expects a mapframe, but removing any hints of failure when an editor is trying to add a mapframe is extremely frustrating. There needs to be a middle ground here that won't alienate anyone. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 10:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
:BTW, the concept of there only being one acceptable color for one type of a warning is, frankly, quite weird. There is such a thing as nuance in conveying information in a system of a million moving parts :) --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 10:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|Joy}} I think you have a great idea here. If an editor has actively indicated that they want a mapframe, then the warning/tracking is warranted. The problem arises when it's added to an infobox template "just in case". How about if we emit the warning (with your clearer rewrite) and the tracking category only if {{para|mapframe|yes}}? — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 10:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Oh, I think the warning should be more precise and concise: {{tq|No coordinates are specified or available from Wikidata: no mapframe will be shown in the infobox.}} — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 10:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
::::Makes sense. Also, if we could prefix it with the name of the parent template that emitted them, that would be great. I've seen several articles that have two infoboxes, so it's helpful to know which one was it. A link to that infobox would be most welcome, too. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 13:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
:::Well, there's that possibility. At the same time, nowadays more people may be aware of mapframes, and more and more may have an expectation to be able to have it working with some regular amount of effort put in. If nothing is helping them debug by default, the learning curve is just too steep.
:::We don't know the size of these editor contingents - those confused by these messages and those that need help debugging mapframes - and we shouldn't assume one is substantially larger than the other.
:::The people who don't understand why the map is missing or broken would have to react by finding the documentation, figuring out that maybe they need to start fiddling with map options, eschew the pitfall of setting Location map options instead of mapframe, and then do an edit that sets mapframe=yes, click preview, and only then the code would give them a warning. That's just too complex of a scenario.
:::It might be alleviated with that thing mentioned in another thread - if we detect fiddling with any mapframe-* option, then we act differently. But it'd still be too quiet by default.
:::There needs to be some way to show the status of implicit coordinates/mapframe handling without confusing anyone. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 13:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
::::BTW, recently I've seen many warnings from citation templates in that edit preview box. I was also often confused by them, but didn't think they should be removed just because I didn't happen to care for understanding them while making my edit. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 13:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::I went looking and found one where it looked like this:
:::::: Script warning: {{red|One or more {{tl|cite book}} templates have errors}}; messages may be hidden ([[Help:CS1 errors#Controlling_error_message_display|help]]).
:::::: Script warning: {{green|One or more {{tl|cite web}} templates have maintenance messages}}; messages may be hidden ([[Help:CS1 errors#Controlling_error_message_display|help]]).
:::::So there's clearly some existing nuance, red and green, the ability to point out which template it's about, and a link to a help page. We should do something like that here (perhaps avoiding the "messages may be hidden" part, that seems odd). --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 16:54, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
:I've been editing Wikipedia since 1836. Not to brag, but my contributions to [[Abraham Lincoln]] helped make it a BLP Excellent Article. (Don't believe me? Ask my brother-in-law, who ran the first Internet Cafe in Illinois, right across the street from the legislative building.)
:But I have no idea what a "mapframe" is. Above, Joy is totally right about making the message clear: it should be actionable. Maybe even a link to some page that explains details of what is, wasn't, should've been done. Maybe even take it a step further: why is all this so amazingly complicated? Editors just want to edit Wikipedia. I read an article about a painting selling at a record price in auction, so I wanted to add it to Wikipedia. Next thing I know, I'm down some technical rat-hole about map frames and coordinates when the article I was working has ''nothing at all to do'' with coordinates or maps. --- [[User:Mikeblas|mikeblas]] ([[User talk:Mikeblas|talk]]) 15:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
::Trying to catch up on all the new posts... My main thing in response to {{u|Joy}}'s initial suggestion of removing the red is that if we are going to have a warning, it needs to stand out. Does it '''need''' to be red? That is def up for debate. Making it black text I think would be a mistake though as it will blend in with the infobox text and defeat the entire purpose of having the warning at all. I think if we have a more clear error message, one that explains what is happening (which it seems like everyone supports) I see no harm in sticking with the current (''nearly'' universal) convention of displaying warnings in red. '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 18:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
:::There's many ways to format that - it can also be in bold, italics, in a small orange div, it can be moved to the big orange box above, etc. Anyway, do we have a test case for this where we could play with it? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 19:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

== mapframe = yes ==

I've asked [[User:Zackmann08]] on their page [[User talk:Zackmann08#mapframe = yes|here]], but moving it here. [[User:hike395]], is it possible for the module to not require adding {{para|mapframe|yes}} in templates? Is there some "core" parameter that is needed for the mapframe to display something viable correctly? For example, in a regular image, the size, upright, caption, and alt can be filled out, but without the image itself, nothing will display. This makes templates using InfoboxImage to not need to use something like {{para|image|yes}} and {{para|image-name|example.jpg}}. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 06:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

:Going to copy what I said on my talk page about 10 seconds ago to here since it will help to be part of this thread....
:So your example of {{para|image|yes}} doesn't really fit. While I get what you are saying it is a bit different here. The key difference is found if you look into {{para|onByDefault}} in the call to [[Module:Infobox mapframe]].
:Basically in {{tl|Infobox settlement}}, if you look at the source code you will find an {{code|#if:}} statement that checks if a {{param|pushpin_map}}, {{param|image_map}} or {{param|image_map1}} have been supplied. If they have not been, then the mapframe is turned on by default and using {{para|mapframe|yes}} in that articles transclusion is, in fact, redundant and not needed. HOWEVER, if for example a pushpin_map is supplied, you must specify {{para|mapframe|yes}} in the article to turn on the mapframe.
:Now your argument seems to be that if any of the other {{code|mapframe-...}} params are supplied in the article, that should ALSO turn the mapframe on and negate the necessity for saying {{para|mapframe|yes}}. That is an interesting idea. From a technical standpoint I'm not sure what that would look like though because so many of those parameters are also defined in the call to the module in {{tl|Infobox settlement}} so I'm not even sure it would be possible. Additionally, this sort of change would likely result in suddenly turning on mapframes in a large number of articles where they previously were not on ''without any changes being made to the articles themselves''. This could be very confusing for editors who have no idea why maps are suddenly showing up in an article with no recent changes. 
:I'm not opposed to the idea, but it would absolutely require a deeper dive than I either have time or technical knowledge to perform. {{u|Hike395}} should be able to give you some better answers though! '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 06:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
::We do already happen to have a parser for all args if they happen to match ^mapframe-*, so that check could plausibly leave a boolean variable that could then be used to affect the default behavior.
::At the same time, it should be based on a parameter, so that an individual infobox can choose or not choose to act like this, such as {{para|onByDefaultIfSpecificParamsFound|yes}}. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 08:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
:The reason for this is explained in [[Wikipedia:Mapframe maps in infoboxes#Background]] - in 2020 when a side-wide RFC was held, we didn't have a side-wide consensus for that default to be on. Instead, we've been taking the more conservative, compromise approach: we only enable it by default if no other maps are present.
:It's hard to tell whether it's a good idea to show many map elements by default on a site-wide basis. Maybe the mapframe is superior to the existing maps, and should instead ''replace'' them, not just be ''added'' to them. Maybe the image_map element is superior, and the mapframe is largely redundant. Maybe there's two maps already and showing a third one is excessive. Changes in these sorts of defaults should be held at the talk pages of individual infoboxes, to at least have a bit of a narrower scope.
:As it happens, we had several discussions about Infobox settlement already, please see the many threads at [[Template talk:Infobox settlement]] as well as its archives. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 08:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
::Given all of the complexity around OSM, Wikidata, shapes, points, markers, etc., and given that many of the default parameters are overridden in infobox template code, I cannot think of a simple way to infer that an article editor wants a mapframe, other than {{para|mapframe|yes}}. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 10:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
:::To expand on the idea above, util.argsFromAuto() could at least start writing down another boolean output variable if it finds anything matching that prefix regex, and make it available to the rest of the code. Then we could somehow expose this additional detection option to those who may want to use it from infoboxes. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 13:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
::::My 2 cents, is this worth the effort to refactor? If we were designing a new module, I would fully support implementing the described behavior. But with this code in use on 1.2 million+ pages, I feel the risk and time/effort to implement outweigh the benefits. As I see it, the only benefit would be that in some cases you would not need to put {{para|mapframe|yes}} in your code... The risks include changes to potentially tens of thousands of pages ''without any edits being made to those pages'' as I described above. I just don't see what is to be gained here. '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 18:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
:::::It seems plausible that we'll have a scenario like this:
:::::# An editor notices something is wrong with the mapframe thumbnail.
:::::# They go into edit mode to find if some parameters are broken.
:::::# Nothing related to mapframe comes up. Confusion ensues.
:::::## If for example the issue is bad zoom, they try just adding {{para|mapframe-zoom|10}} - after previewing this, if we show all the mapframe-related warnings, they might notice the root cause of their previously seen issue.
:::::## If for example the issue is missing shape, they try just adding {{para|mapframe-shape|yes}} - likewise
:::::Indeed, if we could add maintenance messages in this sort of a case, that would be wonderful. For example, messages saying:
:::::: {{tq|The mapframe shown in this {{tl|Infobox airport}} is using the coordinates specified in the {{para|coordinates}} parameter. ([[Template:Infobox mapframe#lalala|help]])}}
:::::or:
:::::: {{tq|The mapframe shown in this {{tl|Infobox farm}} is using the coordinates found in [[d:Q10|the Wikidata item]], property type [[d:Property:P625|coordinate location]].  ([[Template:Infobox mapframe#lalala|help]])}}
:::::or:
:::::: {{tq|There is no mapframe shown in this {{tl|Infobox dam}} because no coordinates were specified, the [[d:Q10|the Wikidata item]] has no properties of type [[d:Property:P625|coordinate location]], [[d:Property:P402|OSM relation ID]] or [[d:Property:P3896|geoshape]]. ([[Template:Infobox mapframe#lalala|help]])}}
:::::or:
:::::: {{tq|There is no mapframe shown in this {{tl|Infobox dam}} because no coordinates were specified, and Wikidata lookups have been disabled. ([[Template:Infobox mapframe#lalala|help]])}}
:::::--[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 19:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

==Discussion at [[:Template talk:MergedMap]]==
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Template talk:MergedMap]]. &#x0020;--<!-- Template:Please see --> [[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 12:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

== mapframe-width ==

Hello, the parameter {{para|mapframe-width}} appears not to do anything, the alternative {{para|mapframe-frame-width}} works OK. [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk:Keith D|talk]]) 19:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

== Maps of the Moon ==

See [[Talk:Fallen Astronaut#the dynamic map window]]. Is it possible for infobox mapframe to use a non-Earth map? Specifically, the Moon, as specified by the {{para||globe:moon}} in the {{tlx|coord}} of [[Fallen Astronaut]]. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 23:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

:For now I have turned off the mapframe with {{para|mapframe|no}}. This is a unique issue. Unless there are lots of other off earth mapframes, I see this as a single page issue that is now resolved. However if we CAN support mapframes of other planets, that would certainly be useful for a couple dozen articles. No idea if that is possible or worth pursuing. '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00ced1">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange;">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 04:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
::It may become more relevant in the coming years, with possible lunar bases and many more missions to Mars. A labour of love for someone! (at OpenStreetMap? Apart from the trivial detail of no actual streets...) [[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 10:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

==Discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Automatic map generation from Wikidata|Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) §&nbsp;Automatic map generation from Wikidata]]==
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Automatic map generation from Wikidata|Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) §&nbsp;Automatic map generation from Wikidata]]. &#x0020;--<!-- Template:Please see --> [[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 08:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

== mapframe-wikidata implicitly on, instead of off? ==

At [[Herero and Nama genocide]], there's {{tl|infobox civilian attack}}, which had to have {{para|mapframe|no}}. Now, this is confusing, because there were no {{para|coordinates}} in that infobox call, nor is there {{para|mapframe-wikidata|yes}} there or in the infobox template defaults.

This needs to be fixed in order to maintain the logical consistency of the current state of [[Wikipedia:Mapframe maps in infoboxes#Background]]. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 12:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

:Does it need the mapframe parameter? I removed it and there are no visible errors in preview, is it in a tracking category? Clearly won't show until there are coords defined. Definitely shouldn't show a map by default, due to the nature of the article it may need a bespoke map. Regs, [[User:The Equalizer|The Equalizer]] ([[User talk:The Equalizer|talk]]) 08:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
::Sorry, in the meantime there was a change on the infobox to also change the onByDefault. I'll have to find a different, less convoluted example. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 09:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
:::OK, here's a different example of the same:
:::* {{tl|Infobox military memorial}} has {{para|onByDefault|yes}}, but does not have {{para|mapframe-wikidata}} set (so I searched for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=hastemplate%3A%22Infobox+military+memorial%22+-hastemplate%3A%22Coord%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 this])
:::* [[Alamein Memorial]] does not have {{para|coordinates}} set, and it has no mapframe parameters set, but [[d:Q16161233]] has P625 coordinates, and a mapframe is shown in the infobox
:::That's not supposed to happen - if there's no coordinates in the article, the default mapframe-wikidata in infoboxes was supposed to be off. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 09:51, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
::::I think this happened with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Infobox_mapframe&diff=prev&oldid=1321415505 this 10 November edit] @[[User:Hike395|Hike395]] - the part where we had:
::::: {{tq|-- But do not use wikidata when local coords are specified (and not turned off), unless explicitly set}}
::::: {{tq|if useWikidata and config.coord ...}}
::::That last part wasn't kept in the new version - the condition that there is already a set of coordinates in the local config.
::::Rather, the suppressWikidata logic was implemented as part of the generic ternary.
::::If we want to keep this module code this way, we have to actually go through all the invoking templates and set mapframe-wikidata=off wherever it's not set already.
::::I don't know if that's cleaner compared to just having a global default here. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 10:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Joy}} Let's try to clarify what you are proposing, since I think you're asking for a behavior change, not a bug fix. Remember that "wikidata" is not really an appropriate name for the parameter, so this may be mixing things up. You said, above
::::::{{tq|if there's no coordinates in the article, the default mapframe-wikidata in infoboxes was supposed to be off.}}
:::::Even before I started editing this module, it drew lines and polygons even if no local coordinates were provided. The canonical example 
:::::<code><nowiki>{{Infobox mapframe|id=Q100}}</nowiki></code> produces the map to the right {{Infobox mapframe|id=Q100}}
:::::The [[Template:Infobox mapframe/testcases|test cases]] contain the behavior of the module as of 2020 (in the third column). The very first test case is this simple case, and you can see that it drew a polygon without coordinates even back in 2020 (albeit with the wrong zoom and with too high of a fill opacity). This is why I think you're asking for a new behavior, rather than fixing an introduced bug.
:::::I also want to clarify that '''{{red|I am not the maintainer of this module}}'''. I've tried to make the module better, but ever since I've gotten involved, I've been pinged with feature requests that are either (a) impossible (because I can't change Kartographer), (b) confusing, (c) very difficult to implement, or (d) I don't agree with. Some of these requests have been rather rude (IMO). I find editing this module now very energy-sapping and unpleasant, so I want to stop editing this module, per [[WP:VOLUNTEER]]. I want to concentrate on encyclopedic content, rather than endlessly fiddling with maps.
:::::Having said that, I can fix actual user-facing bugs that I've introduced over the last couple of months (if any). But I don't want to change the behavior of the template any more. I'll let other editors do that. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 13:01, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::The problem is that when we called the ''template'' it would use Wikidata, but when we did #invoke: from other infoboxes, it did not. I know this was so because it was both something that I noticed as a mildly annoying incongruence in practice, and because I kept finding examples like that in practice and having to address them.
::::::Thinking about examples for the latter, I checked and found a couple from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zapre%C5%A1i%C4%87&diff=prev&oldid=1326011318 December 6], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Square_of_the_Victims_of_Fascism&diff=prev&oldid=1325660222 December 4]. In those cases I visually checked what was rendered before and after the conversion from template call to embedded invocation, and then did those updates to get the same features back.
::::::However, this timeline doesn't actually match the aforementioned commit, so I'm actually back to the drawing board on that.
::::::Apologies if this came across as rude. I definitely don't have an expectation that you'll make further changes. I'm just trying to confer with you about the code because you seem to have the current insights about its logic, and I'm not sure if I'm looking at the right place (and as we can see from the above, I wasn't). Figuring out what is intended and what is not is important in plotting a way forward, because this code often seems to me like a [[Chesterton's fence]] :) --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 14:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I should note that those two examples were about {{tl|Infobox settlement}}, which can't any longer be used to trivially verify this, because in the meantime the default behavior of that template changed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_settlement&diff=prev&oldid=1326910237] following a brief discussion [[Template talk:Infobox settlement/Archive 34#Mapframe wikidata|here]]. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 08:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I created a new fourth column in the test cases based on [[Template:Infobox mapframe/sandbox3]]. Several of those test cases now illustrate this behavior. I'm not sure it's entirely right as such, because the custom attributes don't seem to be taken in consistently. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 08:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Okay, I get it now, all the testcase parameters are tested as "foo=bar" rather than "mapframe-foo=bar". But the latter form would be needed with #invoke:. I remember a discussion about this, but I can't seem to find it right now. qid is the same in all cases, however, so we still seem to have a basic test of what the default Wikidata behavior does. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 08:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
{{od|8}} I suspect you are getting confused by a basic difference between {{tl|Infobox mapframe}} and [[Module:Infobox mapframe]]. The former takes only the arguments it is given, while the latter ''inherits arguments from the calling template''. Specifically, [[Module:Infobox mapframe]] inherits {{para|coordinates}} from the infobox that contains its call. Note that both the template and the module call the same underlying code.

This explains the behavior you are seeing at [[Zaprešić]]. Before {{U|Zackmann08}} changed it to use the module, the behavior was
{{Infobox mapframe|id = Q5408| zoom = 9 | stroke-width = 1 | shape-fill-opacity = 0.25 }}
After he edited it to use the module call in {{tl|Infobox settlement}}, the behavior was
{{Infobox mapframe|id = Q5408| coordinates = {{coord|45|51|26|N|15|48|18|E|region:HR-01|display=inline}} | frame-width = 250 | stroke-width = 2 | area_km2 = 53.8 | type = city| population = 24133 | marker = town}}
because coordinates are supplied in the infobox and there is no {{property|P402}} nor {{property|P3896}} at [[:d:Q5408]]. When you edited [[Zaprešić]], you asked for an explicit shape, so you got
{{Infobox mapframe|id = Q5408| coordinates = {{coord|45|51|26|N|15|48|18|E|region:HR-01|display=inline}} | frame-width = 250 | stroke-width = 2 | area_km2 = 53.8 | type = city| population = 24133 | marker = town | shape = yes| stroke-width = 1}}
On December 11, Zackmann edited {{tl|Infobox settlement}} to add {{para|mapframe-wikidata|yes}} by default, which would always draw OpenStreetMap line and polygons, regardless of whether Wikidata has {{property|P402}} nor {{property|P3896}}. If you hadn't edited [[Zaprešić]] and waited for Zackmann, you would have seen
{{Infobox mapframe|id = Q5408| coordinates = {{coord|45|51|26|N|15|48|18|E|region:HR-01|display=inline}} | frame-width = 250 | stroke-width = 2 | area_km2 = 53.8 | type = city| population = 24133 | marker = town | wikidata = yes}}

As far as I can tell, there is no bug, everything is working as intended. Zackmann setting {{para|mapframe-wikidata|yes}} in {{tl|Infobox settlement}} was probably a good idea (modulo perhaps all of the recent controversy about the reliability of OpenStreetMap lines/polygons). — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 12:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

:Okay, thanks, that all makes sense for that use case. But what about the inverse, the case at e.g. [[Alamein Memorial]] I mentioned before? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 13:34, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

::I don't understand why this is a problem?
::*{{tl|Infobox military memorial}} sets {{para|mapframe-marker|monument}}, so it's always going to show a monument marker (if either local coordinates or Wikidata coordinates are provided)
::*If {{para|mapframe-wikidata}} is not set, then it will [[#Fixed argument handling|display a polygon or line]] under the cases "no local coordinates given" or "Wikidata provides geodata". Both of those booleans are true, so it draws a shape.
::Everything is working as intended. What would you propose doing differently? Remember we need to stay close to Evad37's original design, because the module is used on more than 1 million pages. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 14:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
:::I personally think that's fine, but in the meantime another editor complained that it's too obfuscated for editors that way - in the article, there's no mention of either coordinates or mapframe in the source, yet they appears, sort of automagically, and they then don't know what to do with it until they re-read the documentation (either in the infobox template or in the visual editor).
:::I can't really tell what's @[[User:Evad37|Evad37]]'s original design here. I went back to re-read their RFC [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mapframe maps in infoboxes]] and the outcome is actually fairly ambiguous in this regard - Q2 didn't get consensus at the time, while Q4 did, yet Q4 can actually be seen as logically dependent on Q2.
:::I guess I'll have to go draft a new RFC to try to arrive at a new, hopefully clearer consensus. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 14:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
::::{{tl|Infobox military memorial}} could show Wikidata coordinates with that little pencil added whenever the coordinates are not supplied locally. It'd be more clear where the map magic comes from. I think (some) people need to get used to things like this. To me, most of these maps are "the sky is blue". It'd take a lot of "assume bad faith" for me to think otherwise. [[User:Ponor|Ponor]] ([[User talk:Ponor|talk]]) 15:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Joy}} where is the discussion you've mentioned (above)? — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 16:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::I couldn't seem to find it... I think it included @[[User:Zackmann08|Zackmann08]]. It was about dropping the complexity of handling both foo and mapframe-foo arguments. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 18:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry haven't been following this one... To many balls in the air right now. Decided to abstain from this particular discussion so I'm no help here. Sorry! '''[[User:Zackmann08|<span style="color:#00d5ff">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>]]''' (<sup>[[User_talk:Zackmann08|Talk to me]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Zackmann08|<span style="color:orange">What I been doing</span>]]</sub>) 18:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::Hmm, yes, makes sense that the new default auto caption function should add a note about how the current map logic worked out in each case. I don't know if we can use {{tl|efn}} to be extra clear, does a default {{tl|notelist}} render at the bottom just like the default {{tl|reflist}}? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 18:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::Yes, but they are all numbered, even if the note was produced by something specifying a letter identifier, such as {{tlx|efn}}. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] &#x1f339; ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 18:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)