Template talk:Marker Voyage Tips and guide

Swept in from the pub

Contents

The good part of the change is that it creates a map coordinate. Is it easy to create that without using a listing template? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I still believe we need an alternate, simpler template for inserting only a POI coordinate in prose passages. Texugo (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

That would be very good to have. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that would be indeed very useful. --Danapit (talk) 07:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I thought Template: Poi already did that? Guess I am missing something? - Matroc (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I have overlooked that one. Template:Poi is marked as experimental though, so not sure if it is ready to be used widely. I see you can select the POI number manually. Maybe it is a silly question, but doesn't it collide with the automatic numbering using listings? --Danapit (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Template:Poi is not compatible with automatic numbering. We can make a new template: {{Marker | type=(see/do/...) | name=(only for map marker) | lat= | long= | image= }}. But User:Torty3 would implement the automatic numbering if possible (@Torty3: listing|marker ?). -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sure, if people want it enough. I was thinking about inline listings, but did decide that was too complicated in the end and forgot about it amongst the wiki drama and my list of squishy bugs to squish and features to make. -- torty3 (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

torty3, I am sure that would be a very useful feature indeed if you find time to work on adding it. --Danapit (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, torty3, for adding Template:Listing Template:Marker! Let's use it. Danapit (talk) 10:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if this was a typo, but Template:Listing is already in use, and is the base template that is used for all see, do, buy, eat, drink and sleep listings. See Wikivoyage:Listings for further details. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

This was a typo, indeed, sorry. Now we have an inline listing template: Template:Marker. --Danapit (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Where can I find the permissible types, please?

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

These icons are available: [1]. But only the official types "see, do, etc." are in common use. -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 10:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Terrific! Thanks for your rapid and precisely helpful answer, Joachim! --118.93nzp (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

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

This edit may resolve the problem. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for trying, Ryan, but the strangeness is still exhibited here: http://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Pyeongchang&oldid=2504311#By_air --118.93nzp (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

This edit fixes Pyeongchang#By air for me. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

And for me, too. Thanks! --118.93nzp (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

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

That was my fault - the fix for #Unusual effect caused the template to expand with an extra newline. This edit fixes Milan#Areas for me, but let me know if you still see any issues. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Now it looks right! Thanks! ϒpsilon (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually there's one more thing, Ryan. In the Buy section I added markers for all shopping streets and areas (basically everything in bold) yesterday (or should I say about 24h ago as you're 10 time zones away) but now I notice some of them do not show up now. Maybe that has something to do with that edit as well? Hopefully the other editors' problems in the above discussion don't come back if you fix this. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

It looks like several places in the Milan article were using "llat" instead of "lat". It should be working now. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see, this time it was just me being clumsy while copy pasting coordinates. Thanks for fixing it! :) ϒpsilon (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Swept in from the pub

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

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

Possibly use template PoiMap2? Not sure if this is what you are looking for - Matroc (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I believe {{marker}} is what you're looking for. Texugo (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, marker is very useful: {{marker|type=listing|name=Tegernsee Station|lat=47.71384|long=11.757204}} 47.7138411.7572041 Tegernsee Station Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

Swept in from the pub

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

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

• 43.788112-79.3808381 Sun Star Chinese Cuisine, 636 Finch Ave E, North York (39 bus from Finch Station to bus stop named: 636 Finch Ave E.), ☏ +1 416-229-0866. Cantonese cuisine. $60 for 4 persons including tax & tip. (updated Nov 2015)

I think @Yurik: may be able to answer, if no one else can. I'd guess it's a bad/missing tile in the Mediawiki maps layer. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Wrh2:, this is not our new map, its the old wmflabs-based raster mapping system that I don't know much about. The new map shows the map ok - click on the icon in the upper right, and select "wikimedia". I thought it was made to be default for everywhere? --Yurik (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I see how switching to Wikimedia works, but I have to override "Mapnik" each time. So how, does one make it the default? Is this an administrator task? Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Mey2008, Torty3, Atsirlin: or anyone else familiar with dynamic maps - any thoughts? Do we need to update a config or template to point to the Wikimedia layer? -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

It appears that (my mini obseration) Main articles default to W (Wikimedia) in geo -- whereas: mapframe and listings (markers) seem to have M (Mapnik)- Matroc (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC) -- Evidently this is not totally true either... there are some conditions that exist that prove me incorrect...Reply

I think I found the solution! When I insert the Mapframe tag into the article, the default becomes Wikimedia and the gray areas disappear. The above discussion did give me some inspiration on the matter. (The article was Toronto/North York.) Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I changed the default here. Seems to work - the orange link above points to the Wiki maps now. --Yurik (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Marker template - should that be changed as well.. [{{PoiMap2|{{{lat|0}}}|{{{long|0}}}|{{{zoom|17}}}|M}}.... to [{{PoiMap2|{{{lat|0}}}|{{{long|0}}}|{{{zoom|17}}}|W}}.... (|M to |W)? - Matroc (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

If it's the last argument to PoiMap2, it should be deleted, because PoiMap2 uses W as the default anyway. --Yurik (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. --Yurik (talk) 03:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Yurik. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

I've used the go for travel-related listings, like airports and train stations. It produces a nice icon that looks like a portfolio. --Jonte-- (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, it is not bad, but I don't think everyone will guess that a briefcase stands for a transportation terminal... Something that looks like a train, bus, plane, or ship would be a lot more obvious, methinks. -- Vmenkov (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

The briefcase was purposely used as a generic form to include trains, buses, planes and ships I guess. A smaller set of markers also made it easier for separate development and auto-numbering for both Wikivoyage and the map tool (and a lot of collaboration between different language spaces too). With more specific icon types, it starts falling into the domain of OpenStreetMap, and then I might as well use that instead of Wikivoyage. -- torty3 (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

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

What would be the resulting action of the click? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

There is Template:Marker which may be close to what you are looking for. For an example see Glasgow#By_train where the two stations appear with numbered red markers. AlasdairW (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's exactly what I need. Thanks! Peter Chastain (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

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

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

No, although would maybe work for travel topic with multiple groups, will not work for itinerary with one group but multiple types that to be displayed and seen, for example Rheinburgenweg. Could we combine counter and type to make groups? Would this work group={{{counter}}}{{{type|listing}}}? --Traveler100 (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Test appears not to make any difference to the group list and causes syntax problems with marker templates inside listing templates. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

If it's 99 markers of each type, it might be possible to use type=red, type=blue, type=black, type=gold, type=maroon and the like as a scam to get an extra 99 markers. It's kludgy (and likely won't be very usable if printed as monochrome hard copy) but Trans-Siberian Railway#Go uses it to switch the markers for the lines to China and Mongolia to other, arbitrary pretty colours while the mainline is red.

Nonetheless, 99 is restrictive and a bug. This might've been raised in the pub before, no idea if there are any good answers. K7L (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is this a bug or a feature? If there are more than 99 markers in an article, that's a good indicator that it's time to prune, districtify, or otherwise subdivide. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's a bug when dealing with itinerary, for instance a "master list" of attractions for all of Route 66 can get lengthy. We might have about sixty POI's (which currently lack map and coords) in our main US66 itinerary and twenty in the Disney version, but that's because we're omitting a fair amount of detail. National Park Service has just over 100 in their web itinerary, as a subset of the 200 venues on the national historic register, but not every POI on 66 is on NRHP. K7L (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Bug when you need more than 99. There are times when it is inappropriate to split. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Example Wales Coast Path. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

We marked this behavior as a bug about one year ago but unfortunately nothings happened. Maybe we can together up pressure to solve this problem. The only workaround we have is to use additional marker colors with an additional numbering. --RolandUnger (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for listing on phabricator. Should we do anything to shake things up? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

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

I think it's a good thing this comes up. I see where you are coming from, and agree that having the link to WP is a good thing. However I think the way it is currently done there is a visual issue with this. For instance in the Berlin/South example you mention or also in the Romanshorn article, the problem is that after every listing there will be a "." punctuation mark, which looks really awkward in my opinion if it's in the middle of the sentence. (e.g. "The 47.56679.383331 railway station.   is located in the town centre right next to the harbour.") I think having the wikipedia and wikidata symbol in the middle of the sentence is fine, but that full stop really looks out of place. So at the very least, when changing markers to listings, we should restructure the sentences such that the listing is at the end of the sentence (e.g. from the Berlin article: "The center of Steglitz is the U-/S-Bahn station 52.456213.32162 Rathaus Steglitz. (U9, S1)  ") or on its own. In cases where this is not possible, because it breaks the flow of the sentence or makes it look ugly, I still think using a marker is the better solution. Drat70 (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for bringing this to attention. My focus here on Wikivoyage for the last few years have been georeferencing and particularly georeferencing transport related infrastructure such as train stations. My take is that using {{marker}} for smaller listings simplifies editing and the flow of text. A large number of articles has just 1-2 lines for transport and the need for additional information is limited. I fully support using {{listing}} for larger stations where it makes sense to include information such as amenities, directions, phone numbers etc. {{marker}} blends well into text and improves the flow. An example from Mersin, Turkey which I edited recently:

"All trains are run by the national operator TCDD. The railway station, 36.80265734.6337523 Mersin Garı is situated between the city centre at the port on İstiklal Cd". For such an simple sentence, it makes no sense at all to use {{listing}}. As an compromise, I do think it would be good to rework {{marker}} so that Wikidata can be included. --Jonte-- (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for bringing this up. I completely agree that the above example is visually very unappealing and even looks like there is some displaying error. The example in Berlin/South is even worse making it almost unreadable. Regarding the question, whether there should be some guidelines regarding this issue, I would also agree to that. I raised a related point some time ago regarding airport listings/markers (Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#Marker_or_listing_for_Airports). The guidelines should take into account the different needs for small vs. medium-sized cities. Xsobev (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

It gets even worse, when the lastedit field ist filled:

To get into Köpenick take the S47 to 52.447213.56134 Spindlersfeld.   or the S3 to 52.458613.58085 Köpenick. (updated Aug 2017) and consider taking one of the many trams to the old town and the old palace.

I like having the markers in the text, but I don't like having all of the other listing things (the Wikipedia W, the Wikidata barcode, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Then you should use the {{Marker}} template instead of {{listing}}. {{listing}} is normally used as a paragraph with more detailed information but not as an inline element. Example: To get into Köpenick take the S47 to 52.458613.58086 Köpenick and others. --RolandUnger (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

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

Though not really recommended, one can use maplink directly.

Example: To get into Köpenick take the S47 to Köpenick⁷ and others. -- would still use {{marker}} within paragraph text and not {{listing}} as mentioned above. -- Matroc (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Definitely not recommended, looking at all that coding! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree about the coding and not doing it by hand - {{marker}} produces much the same hidden code as a maplink done by hand (hurrah for templates) - use Marker as is -- Matroc (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just use Marker. The absence of Wikipedia and Wikidata links is hardly a deal breaker when we're talking about transit stations. They're all sufficiently linked from the system's Wikipedia article. Powers ^(talk) 14:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

No they're not. And the Wikipedia link provides users who want background on a transit station with just that. More of them are historically or architecturally important than one might think. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

If they have historical or architectural importance, then they should have their own listings. Powers ^(talk) 02:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Definitely. I assume you mean a 'see' listing, though? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

In principle, the {{marker}} template can be extended to present Wikipedia, Commons, and Wikidata links. But please act with caution. {{marker}} is used by {{listing}} that means changes for marker will occur in the listing template, too. So it seems necessary to separate both templates before. If you like you can have a view to the examples of the German marker version to get some ideas to improve the marker template. --RolandUnger (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well most people will see most Metro stops mostly as a means to get some place. A limited few might think "hm nice" at a select few particular stations, but rare is the enthusiast who will appreciate which architect or era an otherwise unremarkable station represents. And I would think it would take the truly dedicated to appreciate anything about Langwasser Süd U-Bahn station besides it being the first ever in Nuremberg and its value in transportation (in case you've gotten curious for its architecture, de-WP has more pictures) Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sure, which is why links to Wikipedia aren't necessary for most metro stations. If a Wikipedia link is necessary, then the station probably has tourist value independent of its service as a metro stop and it should be listed in See. Powers ^(talk) 20:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Listing the same station in both "get in" (as transport) and "see" (as architecture) is a pattern we try to avoid, as we normally list an individual venue only once. Breaking this pattern risks many duplicate listings as every hotel with a restaurant claims both "eat" and "sleep". K7L (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think making an exception for stations worth seeing seems like a good idea. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

But which are? And what do you say to the likes of Berlin/Mitte#Get in? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

In answer to the first question, we can answer that the same way we answer any question about whether to include an attraction in the "See" section. If it seems like it's interesting enough to be worth seeing, we include it. Otherwise, we don't. As for Berlin/Mitte#Get in, it seems like a decent section, I guess. I think the listing template in the first paragraph is a bit ugly, but the parentheses help set it off from the text, so it doesn't bother me the way the nearly unreadable Berlin/South#Get in does. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

In response to K7L, markers are not listings. There would be only one listing: in See. The marker in Get Around would only be for mapping purposes. Powers ^(talk) 20:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I prefer listing for stations. In many cases the WP article gives information which is mainly of interest to those using the station to get a train. For instance most UK station WP articles give the annual rail passenger usage, so I can see how busy the station is likely to be. Listings also give the full range of fields, "directions" can be used to list the best buses to get to the station, "alt" can be used for any network abbreviations for the station or local common names etc, "url" can link to the station's webpage, which can be very useful for disabled travellers. Only a very few stations are so interesting as to be a see listing, but many are interesting enough to look at while waiting for your train. AlasdairW (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

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

Keep in mind that as per Talk:Berlin/South the district is likely to be split in the foreseeable future. I also think that city railway stations should if at all possible be one paragraph that is included in a listing. A similar thing should apply for municipal airports for which we don't have articles and never will. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think there's nothing wrong with giving railway station their own paragraph and listing if and when there's enough content (for instance I think Berlin/Mitte#Get in is perfectly fine). But this discussion was started because of empty listings inserted in-line (such as in the example of Berlin/South#Get in or also Romanshorn) without any content other than the wikidata and wikipedia link and without changing the sentence to match it and I think that is an issue that you don't really address. Especially the fact that it introduces punctuation in the middle of a sentence. That is very bad for readability and makes the text much harder to understand, especially for non-native speakers. Can we as a minimum agree on not adding empty listings in-line without making sure that there's no weird punctuation in the middle of a sentence? Drat70 (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Of course. I don't think you'll get any argument about this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I would second this and propose that until we figure out if we are to update {{marker}} then we do not use {{listing}} in the middle of a sentence. Either use marker in text or create a listing after the text. In my view this is the best option from a readability perspective. --Jonte-- (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. I've seen many pages where listings in the "get in" section were inserted in the middle of a sentence (@Ikan Kekek: unfortunately not as obvious as it may seem), often by just converting a "marker" to a "listing", while leaving everything around it untouched. Xsobev (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

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

Why would this be more difficult for subway stations than for any other type of "See" attraction? —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Because they are likely already listed in "get in" or "get around" and their primary value and purpose is transport, not prettiness. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why would that make them more difficult to make decisions about than any other "See" attraction? I think we should hold them to the same standards as any other "See" listing—if they're not particularly pretty or interesting (like the vast majority of subway stations, I think), then of course they shouldn't be listed in that section. If they are of interest to sightseers (excluding subway enthusiasts), then they should be listed. I really don't understand what the objection to that would be. Anyway, I don't think this applies to very many subway stations, so I don't care all that much. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's a very subjective thing, though. True, newer systems like Nuremberg U-Bahn may not hold anything interesting, but the older systems are remarkable if only for the wide range of architecture they encompass. Be they "bourgeois cathedrals", "cookie cutter" standard scheme approaches, brutalism, (post-)modernism or any other style that might have been en vogue over a century. Plus a listing is also able to better be filled with a content tab or alt tab which gives the likes of the lines stopping there. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Again, I don't see how this architectural history makes them any different from any other buildings that we might consider including in the "See" section. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Boring Corp. Headquarters is only relevant for people who work or have business there unless it is of architectural interest. The Boring Corp. Subway stop is of interest for everyone who stays in the area or needs to go to the area. Irrespective of its architectural value. So there's a difference right there. And there is a wider range in architecture of subway stations than of Boring Corp. Headquarters. Compare this (Heidelberger Platz) with this. Almost a century apart and certainly more different than two random office towers. But 99% will still only care for whatever lies beyond the station. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is really not as complicated as it seems.

Would you give this station a listing, even if the subway line were abandoned? If yes, then give it a listing under ==See==. If no, then give it a marker under ==Get around== and skip the listing.

So: New York's Grand Central Station gets a listing. Milano Centrale gets a listing. But most – probably 95% of them – don't, except perhaps if someone were writing an itinerary about rail infrastructure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Some stations might also be listed under #Buy or elsewhere. How should we handle something like Shanghai/French_Concession#Xujiahui Which is a subway interchange with a collection of large malls around it? Currently it is a subsection under "Neighborhoods". What about the markets described at Shanghai#Clothing? Two (People's Park & Science Museum) are appendages of metro stops, & Qipu Lu is a shopping area with a metro stop under it. Pashley (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

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

Most transit stations do not need listings. The only reason they even need markers is for mapping purposes. If there is a transit station that does need a listing, that listing should be in See with the other buildings of interest. Powers ^(talk) 01:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

See Shanghai/Pudong#Get_around for an example where we do have a lot of listings for metro stations. Pashley (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Huh. Are those all of the stations in the district or just a selection? Powers ^(talk) 02:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

1. As I sometimes use maplink code, I accidently used "description=Image and some relevant text" as a parameter instead of image= parameter as used in the marker template.
   • 26.9124375.787271 Jaipur — the state capital, also known as the Pink City
   • The image pops up on map and descriptive text displays below image. This parameter passes through and is processed and added to the GeoJSON code. This I believe is an anomoly as description is not listed as a parameter. -- Matroc (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Swept in from the pub

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

I agree with your reluctance, though not just for aesthetic reasons. Why would we want to funnel readers away to WP at such an early stage? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree, both for aesthetic reasons and because I don't see why users need links to the Wikipedia and Wikidata pages for a city right next to the link to the Wikivoyage page (basically what ThunderingTyphoons! said). I've been changing "listing" templates to "marker" templates when I see them in city lists. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm on the other side - for having the links, definitely at least to wikidata. We can do it either via listings, or by moving wikidata into markers. The latter is what's done in de:Vorlage:Marker (it seems) - and thus what likely will be done also here, eventually...

• In any case, having the wikidata references has number of benefits - if nothing else, easily accessible URL/picture and also lat/long data. For sure the processing would be simpler for bots. E.g. in case we decide to have some nice overview maps in the future (like "biggest cities in the Alps"), having the wikidata IDs in place would help grouping acc. to regions etc. In short - all the wikidata links help automated processing.
• As for the wikipedia links - it probably is a good idea at least for the articles we don't have yet? Like here it'd help, IMO.
• I'm actually half-way of having User:AndreeBot ready to convert the current outline region articles into having at least listings out of the cities (and probably also 'other destinations', if it's easy to do). Markers are possible too, in the end. But using listings sounds more logical. Also, should we change our minds, converting to listings to markers is easier than the other way around... Andree.sk (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't have an opinion on the functionality perspective yet but in terms of aesthetics, I think it's looks uglier in the City section compared to See and Do because the WP and WD links are at the start of the listing instead of at the end. Also the city descriptions are usually one-liners so the WP and WD logos stand out more compared to a listing with say, 3 lines of content. Gizza ^(roam) 22:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The more I think about it, the more I believe that we don't need a WP link for cities at least with a blue link. The whole point of see listings being linked to WP is because we don't have an article for sights themselves here. We don't have articles on museums so we link to WP if someone wants to read about the museum in detail. That's not the case with cities. And I don't think Wikipedia should get a preference when other WMF wikis have content about that city. Looking at the sidebar of Los Angeles for example, there is a Wikimedia Commons page, Wikinews page, WP page and Wikiquote page. A traveller reading the California guide and seeing Los Angleles in the list may want to see a gallery of images showing the city instead of encyclopedic information (making Commons if anything a more suitable link) or they may want to read current news or quotes about the city. Also I wonder if there's a way to add the Wikidata link but make it not show up in the article (so we can obtain lat/long information from it but the reader can't see it on the region page unless they click on the city link and then see it in the sidebar of the city article). Gizza ^(roam) 22:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

If we want to add the Wikidata IDs to city lists for bots without making them show up in the article for readers, we can just add "wikidata=Q12345" to the "marker" template. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

For the most part, India articles with Cities or Other Destinations were entered via marker templates. These are generally linked to a corresponding article page from which you can get to Wikipedia and Wikidata. Yes you can add "wikidata=Q12345" to the "marker" template without issue; however, I wouldn't advocate it (Using the same idea, you can enter a parameter description which is also not a listed parameter but will show up when you click on a map icon - just being cautious about adding parameters). -- Matroc (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC) - If wanted, I would add valid parameters for wikidata and wikipedia in the marker template and not have the icons with links show up on a page - simpler and to the point I think.Reply

We should have links to Wikipedia and Wikidata for Stuttgart in the side menu of the "Stuttgart" page, but not in the higher level article Baden-Württemberg. I agree with ThunderingTyphoons!'s comment above. Nurg (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

So instead of extending {{marker}}, I'd suggest to use the more logical/structured way - and instead add something like no-wiki-icons into {{listing}}...? Or perhaps we can somehow make this default behavior - if {{listing}} is used in a region article, don't show icons, unless force-wiki-icons is specified in the listing? Andree.sk (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I fully understand. First, it sounds to me like you're saying that when "listing" templates are used, the descriptions are included in the dynamic map—is that true? If so, where are they? I've never noticed them. Second, it sounds like you're saying you want to use a bot to edit cities' one-liner descriptions to make them the same at every level of the region hierarchy. That doesn't sound like a good idea to me—I think that, for instance, it's appropriate for the one-liner description of Denver to be different in Colorado and Rocky Mountains (United States of America). —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Both were just theoretical possibilities, of course... I like cross-referenced stuff, because you can do interesting things with that (I like to do technical stuff around here more, than writing prose - if it wasn't obvious yet :)). The bottom line was - if we go with {{marker}}, it's not only semantically weird, but also cuts us from possible improvements in the future - or at least we'd have to write a non-trivial conversion bot. Within few seconds, I found this sample article - to me, such usage of markers is completely weird. Instead of using {{listing}} (possibly with recently introduced inline=yes, to get rid of the dot), {{marker}} is used and manual markup to format alt and content. Superfluous work... And if we want to keep consistent style, it's also bad, if each region has different style of listings ("xxx. A big city." vs. "xxx - is a big city" vs. "xxx (a big city)"). Andree.sk (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

Could you provide a link to an article where this is happening, please, so everyone understands exactly what's going on? (Likewise for the section below.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry should have done that. Metro Cebu. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see. Thanks for the link. I agree, the automatic external link is no good. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Okay, we can add it later, for now I'll remove the automatic links... I agree it would be really only useful for the city articles listings, as you said - but I'm not sure how to automatically determine this in the code (yet). Andree.sk (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

do not do it for type=city. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

But then - what if we don't have an article about the particular city? ... Andree.sk (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It can always be added manually. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

This rabbit hole goes deeper - someone might even change the wikidata image to something weird, or e.g. vandalize/break the metro tracks... I agree the watching is "broken" by this. On the other hand - copying WD stuff to WV "just for watching" of course removes the WD benefits (like "free" better images in the future, or e.g. probably more often updated URLs). Andree.sk (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure automatically adding coordinates is a good idea either. There are too many cases where it doesn't make sense—for instance, if a listing is for something that doesn't have a fixed location from a traveller's perspective (because it's a transportation network, say, or a performance that rotates venues) but Wikidata provides the coordinates for the headquarters or corporate office (often irrelevant to travellers). User:Traveler100's comment and User:Ceever's comment in the pub are also relevant. I think it seems better not to add coordinates automatically and instead allow editors to add them at their discretion using the "Update shared fields using values from Wikidata" button. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'd been half-heartedly slaving away to try to fix a few issues in a travel topic which needs to be ready for next month; one of the oddities I'd found was a museum listing for a group of five museums in Palmyra (New York) operated by the same historic society. The Wikipedia entry covered all five as one entity (d:Q24060783). The FTT candidate needs to single out just one of the five, which directly fits our article's topic. That means we need to pick out (lat,long) for one specific museum in the cluster of five. One more reason why free human labour will not be entirely replaced by machines? :) K7L (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Some kind of compromise might be possible. For instance, a bot could copy coordinates from Wikidata for "eat" and "sleep" listings, while not touching "do" and "go" listings (which are more likely to have irrelevant coordinates). Or the bot could copy the coordinates for all kinds of listings and leave editors to sort out the ones that are irrelevant. But with the automatic coordinates, we end up with irrelevant coordinates that I'm don't know how to remove without removing the Wikidata parameter from the listing. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

This ignores the main reason for wikidata - to avoid duplicating the data... If even wikipedia is OK with using WD, I'd say we should rather find a way to use the data too wherever possible - and only "override" locally. In the end, the choice is simple - either we have no coords, or we have slightly inaccurate ones from wikidata "for free". The Aqaba example from Pub is extreme, but still I'd argue it's still "within few streets accurate" - still much better than nothing (try to find that place without local guide and without address, esp. if you don't even know the alphabet they use).

Regarding the 'rotating performances' and the like - we shouldn't even have wikidata for them, from the previous discussion. I'll probably stop running the bot for this task (auto adding WD links from WP). But if I should keep it running, just use 'wikipedia article#' as wikipedia (note the hash tag). We could similarly add '0:0' as coords, and not produce markers for such thing? It's also a hack though, and probably newcomers would not know...

German WV had the same discussions for sure, perhaps we can ask someone there? Andree.sk (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just to put things in perspective. The Aqaba example is not "extreme", as you claim, but very regular. I feel like Wikidata coordinates are worse than Wikivoyage about 40-60% of the time. I have raised this issue about a year ago when people were so eager to use WD, and already then I pointed out the bad quality of GPS data on WD. Yes, you might be a little off, one or two streets. BUT WHY are we erasing the accurateness of Wikivoyage data by using WD in the first place. Cheers Ceever (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

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

• @Andree.sk, Traveler100: could you fetch the Wikidata label whenever a Wikidata item is present? This has the advantage that Wikidata has track of its use. Jura1 (talk) 10:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  @Jura1:, any idea whether the mw.wikibase.getEntity() function works by fetching complete wikidata entry, or rather some "lazy fetch" way (can't quickly figure it out from here? Currently Module:Map uses it, and then just takes the label (e.labels.en.value) when needed (which is however probably next to never on this site, currently)... Andree.sk (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  @Andree.sk: Possibly. This change was sufficient before. The items added here should appear on [2]. Jura1 (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  @Jura1:... done :) Andree.sk (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Note: Attempt to provide absent lat and long parameters within a marker with just a wikidata id does not work with geo. There is an issue probably with timing where these coordinates are not available for the geo map but ok within a mapframe on a page. -- Matroc (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  @Matroc: The problem is not timing, it's the obsolete/abandoned poimap2.php script, which is basically a separate implementation of our marker template/modules. See Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#Merging_map/marker_functionality_with_de.wikivoyage Andree.sk (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

I would advise to import the lat/longs manually, or at least double check them after importing. For the second item in the list, for example, the marker for Paekakariki is actually placed in the ocean if you zoom in on the map (which I personally find undesirable). ArticCynda (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Coordinates from Wikidata should not be displayed automatically like this, at least not for all POIs. I thought we already discussed this at Template talk:Marker. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

The "Appalachian Trail" marker in Mid-Atlantic is an example of why this shouldn't be done automatically. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

You can override those cross-continental trails coords to make them fit, or fix wikidata/override for the likes of Paekakariki .-) The lat/long are not copied from WD (by the bot), so it's easy to see where the marker coords may be off... Andree.sk (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I still don't see any way to remove coordinates from listings that shouldn't have them at all, short of removing the Wikidata parameter. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Forgot to document it - there's the "NA" value that can be passed to lat/long to do exactly this. Andree.sk (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, seems you are right - also the german WV seems to have the same issue, so it must be some fundamental problem w/ {{PoiMap2}}... :-( Andree.sk (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

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

@Ikan Kekek:, any examples? The markers only use optional wikidata (to fetch missing fields)... You can of course specify wikipedia param too, but it won't show up anywhere (AFAIK). -- andree.sk(talk) 19:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh, that's a shame. No, I don't remember where I saw examples, sorry. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

• Noticed that the pop-up map is not showing when clicking on the listing/marker icon on a page -- Can someone check as it may be a server or other issue - Thanks -- Matroc (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Broken for me in three web browsers on macOS Sierra 10.12.6. I'm pretty sure it was working very recently (possibly within the last 24 hours). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Anybody of the Wikimedia Foundation's programmers changed <maplink> behavior completely. CSS cursor events were set to none, the cursor was changed and the map is substituted by a special page.

You should add to MediaWiki:Common.css‎ the following lines:

.client-js .mw-kartographer-maplink:not(.mw-kartographer-link):not(.ve-ce-focusableNode), .client-js .mw-kartographer-map:not(.mw-kartographer-link):not(.mw-kartographer-interactive) {
	pointer-events: auto;
	cursor: pointer;
}

I think after this you will not see a pop-up map any longer but a special page like this. I think the programmers have no idea why we use the markers in the articles and that they are all shown on the maps.

At the German version we changed the display of maps and wrote several months ago our own client-side map scripts. --RolandUnger (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

This has made me a little bit angry. So my original thought that this was a new feature improvement for the worse was not in error. When will the usage of group and show parameters disappear as well? Limiting the versatile and practical usage of Kartographer as WV has been using it; almost seems to make it worthwhile to rethink using this extension at all. -- Matroc (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

The phabricator task was raised to high priority. Now French wikipedians reported the same failure. I do not know the intention to change to code to the worse. I think the new programmers are not familiar with the project as a whole. --RolandUnger (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

спасибо за эта -- I agree with you - Matroc (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Appears to be back and working - thank you -- Matroc (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

To clarify the issue, we recently had the need to remove event logging from some projects due to resource redirection and improvement of page performance, during development we accidentally removed a piece of code that created the issue and doesn't have a test case, the code passed through our CI jobs and got into production. We are sorry about that, once we were able to take a look into the problem we tried to deploy a fix ASAP. Thank you for reaching us and help us to identify the problem quickly. MSantos (WMF) (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

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

Swept in from the pub

There's even support for it! Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not sure where to respond + I have no strong opinion on this. But basically {{marker}} was (I think) intended to be just a helper for {{listing}} in most cases where alt could be needed. If you really need it, you can always use the inline=yes parameter of {{listing}}, IMO. -- andree.sk(talk) 20:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Really? I had no idea that {{listing}} supported an inline=yes parameter. What does it do? Could you document it? --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I added it as experimental feature some time ago, but I guess it's not experimental anymore... But it does nothing special, just removes the terminal dot - so that the listing can be put inline with the text... kind of like an extended marker (with alt etc.) :-) -- andree.sk(talk) 07:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

It would be great to allow users to see if an article they're going to click on is fleshed out or not. Looks like we already have Stub, Outline, Usable, Guide, Star icons. Why not allow editors to use them? Maybe some flag like `showstatus` or whatever makes sense. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Could line breaks be avoided between the marker symbol and the beginning of the marker name? It is confusing when the name in bold starts a new line, with the marker symbol at the end of the previous line. Could a correctly placed zero width non-break space do? In what file should it go? I suppose nowrap cannot be used, as the name might need to be split. –LPfi (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

A page which rendered satisfactorily for years is now producing large numbers of "The time allocated for running scripts has expired." errors. See Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Dive sites Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I could access the page with no problems, except it took a while for the dynamic maps to load. I don't know whether that's because of the computer I'm on now, or the maps seemingly overly full of points of interest. Vidimian (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Most pages nowadays take a long time before they are complete. I assume that's about Wikidata coordination. I haven't got errors though, and most of the page renders quickly enough. When I notice something missing, it is usually the dynamic map or parts of it. I haven't been testing the mentioned page, but I saw no problem when I was reading it some days (a week?) ago. –LPfi (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Within the last years, there was a steady increase of computing time. This is mainly caused by the call of maplink tags which takes usually 50 percent (and more) of the total time. I do not know the reason for this behavior. Of course, the Wikidata access takes time, too but not as much as the maplink call. In the case of the dive sites article about 7,6 seconds are (now) needed only for these calls, about 24 ms for each marker. Depending on the workload of the servers sometimes the Lua computing time exceeds the limit of 10 seconds which results in the error messages mentioned. Maybe we should open a Phabricator task. --RolandUnger (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

IDK if this is worth it. Prolly a lot of bot activity to make it worthwhile. But I comped up an example of what this might look like from the Belize article. Basically you could add "status=outline" to the marker template, which would replace the bullet with a small icon representing the article status. The idea is that visitors will know a bit more what to expect before clicking a link. Whaddyathink? Oh and here is the CSS to make it happen if you're interested in that. --ButteBag (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

li { background: url('//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Symbol_plain_grey.svg/15px-Symbol_plain_grey.svg.png'); background: url('//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Start-icon.svg/15px-Start-icon.svg.png'); background: url('//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Symbol_keep_vote.svg/15px-Symbol_keep_vote.svg.png'); background: url('//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/Symbol_support_vote.svg/15px-Symbol_support_vote.svg.png'); background: url('//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Symbol_star_gold.svg/15px-Symbol_star_gold.svg.png'); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: .4em; background-size: 12px; list-style: none; padding-left: 1.6em; margin-left: -1.6em; margin-top: 0.2em; }

That could significantly lessen the frustration of clicking through to outlines. It might be confusing until you get it, and it might make the articles look more cluttered regardless. I cannot judge, but the outline frustration has been a big frustration for me when I have wanted to read about some specific region not well covered. Perhaps redirects could be kept as links (to ease creating the articles) with some similar means (a different colour for the link?). –LPfi (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's fun: I like it. Good thinking. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

• Support, but hold it – it's a good idea, and I'm all in favour for it. However, I would want to hold it off for now for two reasons:

• There's a discussion to rename guide status
• There's a discussion to add a new status between usable and guide.

Once they're all resolved, I'm all ready to support. That being said, it will take a lot of work to do, but I support the concept. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok, nice! Yeah if we do go forward with this, I'd like to see some new icons, maybe monochromatic or something to reduce the visual noise. I also have no idea how to do the bot programming, so we would need help with that. For me it doesn't matter so much if guide is being renamed, or if a new status is included. If there's a bot to do this, shouldn't be a big deal if status taxonomy changes. ButteBag (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Do you have the code somewhere? I didn't find it in your recent contributions. What changes are needed to the articles themselves? Can the marker or listing template change the bullet at the beginning of the line? If you need to include the bullet in the marker/listing for this to work, and thus the ordinary bullets need to be removed, this could cause all kinds of problems. There are also issues if you use javascript to remove the bullets at load time or just after, or to add some class to them. –LPfi (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I just "sketched" this out in the browser with CSS (as shown above). There's no code other than the CSS. Adding post-render JS is a bad idea IMHO. I thought it might be possible to add a class to the li element. Something like `has-status has-status-${status}`. We seem to be adding a `vcard` class to a span in there, so I guessed it might be possible. I was guessing someone would need to write a bot to update any marker templates. This would be VERY noisy, so figured it would need pretty wide community acceptance. ButteBag (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK. The problem is that the <li> is just a "*" in the wikitext, identical to any other bullet. The template comes after it, so I don't see how to add classes or styles to the bullet according to something in the template, other than by javascript executed when the template has been loaded. However, I haven't really been coding CSS or javascript, so there may very well be some clean solution that I don't know about. –LPfi (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Could a <div> around the list do something sensible? It could at least add a common class to the bullets and loop through the list items. I think we still need to overwrite the bullets with ones that know the status of the linked article. –LPfi (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

If we can guarantee that the icons use the same width and height as the bullets, I think overwriting wouldn't be that problematic. –LPfi (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I tried to come as close as I could to the wxh of the bullets. But yeah, I'm getting what you're saying now about the "*", sigh. Didn't notice that. The only template I see that does kinda what we want is {{regionlist}}. So we'd have to create a {{markerlist}} template I guess. I don't love how cumbersome that template is (or adding another template), but on the plus side it would make these sections more consistent. ButteBag (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ugh ok, so @LPfi, here's the JS & CSS if you want to play around with it. Why did I do this? This expects the marker template to be formed like so

HTML

<span class="vcard" data-status="guide">[...]</span>

JS

document.querySelectorAll("[data-status]").forEach(status => status.parentNode.classList.add(`has-status`, `has-status-${status.dataset.status}`))

CSS

.has-status { background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 0.4em; background-size: 0.8em; list-style: none; padding-left: 1.6em; margin-left: -1.6em; margin-top: 0.2em; }

.has-status-stub { background-image: url('//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Symbol_plain_grey.svg'); }

.has-status-outline { background-image: url('//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Start-icon.svg'); }

.has-status-usable { background-image: url('//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Symbol_keep_vote.svg'); }

.has-status-guide { background-image: url('//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Symbol_support_vote.svg'); }

.has-status-star { background-image: url('//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Symbol_star_gold.svg'); }

I guess the JS isn't too crazy, but yeah it might be better to create a new template rather than doing it this way if people are interested in doing this. ButteBag (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Could the background size be specified in ems instead of pxs? Mixing the two isn't too good in general, and here we want the icon to fit the space reserved for the bullet, otherwise line-breaks may shift, making the article jump back and forth. A problem is that the icon is of a fixed size, but perhaps the parts not fitting in the box can be made transparent. I suppose few are using fonts with 1 em < 15 px, but you'd never know. Perhaps it doesn't matter too much, but a guarantee is better than an expectation. –LPfi (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ok LPfi, updated. There's still a bug in the JS in that it's expecting the marker to be in a list. I can fix later. Still think I might prefer to have a template, but not sure the implications. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Aren't the bullets always put in lists by the MediaWiki software, even individual bullets? But anyway, yes, the code can be tweaked later, if we get consensus on using it. The main thing for now is to check that the code can be written in a way that doesn't cause disruption. –LPfi (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ah! I though about listings. Yes, markers aren't always in lists. On the other hand, I don't think we should add any icons where markers are used in normal text. –LPfi (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Was there ever any interest in doing this? Thanks! ButteBag (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Hi:

I'm doing my first maps in ENwv. My case is not so trivial so I need to use Marker templates instead of the standard others to group poi's as I need. But I'm finding the Wikidata links (or other related) are not render. My mockup is at my user space.

My markers are like:

 {{marker
 | name = Castillo de los Marqueses de Los Vélez
 | type = other
 | wikidata =Q922097
 | group= vélezblanco
 }} 

Of course the final article will be in English. I'm just learning to use the templates.

What I'm doing wrong? Olea (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Olea Try removing the spacing and enter {{marker| name=Castillo de los Marqueses de Los Vélez| type=other| wikidata=Q922097| group=vélezblanco}} . It should produce 37.69102-2.0984151 Castillo de los Marqueses de Los Vélez . Ping me if it doesn't. Cheers, SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

That shouldn't be needed. Your code above renders as 37.69102-2.0984152 Castillo de los Marqueses de Los Vélez , identical to that by SHB2000 what I can see. It also renders at the linked "mockup". Are you worried because the Wikidata icon doesn't appear? It doesn't at markers, I think. –LPfi (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi I would really like to link to Wikidata because many of these places have pictures in Commons but not any wiki article. I tried not to use Marker but Listing, but seems Mapframe template can't filter listing entries groups:

Mapframe filters by «paisaje»

{{Mapframe | align = center | name = Paisajes de la ruta de interés cultural de la provincia de Almería | height=300|width=800 | group=paisaje }}

but when using Listing instead of of Marker:

{{Listing | name = Castillo de los Marqueses de Los Vélez | type = other | wikidata =Q922097 | group= vélezblanco }}

Am i missing something obvious? Olea (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Group isn't mentioned on Template:Mapframe/doc. Have you tried using layer=paisaje (instead or in addition to group). It is mentioned, although hidden further down the page. There is also "show". I don't know how these three differ and what they are intended for. The documentation would need to be improved. But some of them might work (layer did in a quick test). –LPfi (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Maybe group is not mentioned in Template:Mapframe/doc but it works with Template:Marker. Don't ask me why :-) Olea (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The group parameter works for both Listings and Markers, but to show them on a map you need to define that group with the show-parameter within the Mapframe. So, in the example you listed above using {{Mapframe}}, replace |group=paisaje with |show=paisaje, and all should be working as expected.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The |show=paisaje works like a charm, but only with Markers. Template:Listing/doc instead explicitly states template doesn't pass the group parameter to Marker: The "zoom" and "group" parameters for the {{Marker}} are not currently supported or passed through by {{Listing}}..

In this test the doc seems to be right: User:Olea/Workshop2. Olea (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I was looking at the problem mentioned by Olea, and found something strange. This marker: {{marker | name = Fortín 12 | type = other | wikidata=Q97286349|...}} has NA for "lat=" and "long=". Removing the NA resulted in the following error message: Lua error in Module:Marker at line 64: attempt to index field 'datavalue' (a nil value). Next step was replacing Q97286349 by Q1071 (Geography), a Wikidata item that has no location, after which the error message disappeared. So something must be wrong with the Wikidata item, but also with the Marker software, because the error message should not occur for just missing the NA value for lat/long. --FredTC (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@FredTC: Q97286349 has its coordinate location set to "Unknown value", which is likely what causes the problem there.

@Olea: It does indeed look like the support for grouping isn't built into {{Listing}} at all. I don't remember that being the case, but looking at where I used listings and markers together in Dutch Empire, there are only few listings, all used in the same section of the article, so it never posed a problem there. I don't know whether it's possible for someone to add the support for grouping into Listing, but if so, it would be very helpful for not just you. For what it's worth, it seems you'd have to convert all listings to Markers if you want to add one of them to a group until a fix is made.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I finally moved to markers only. But I really miss the links to other projects, specially Commons, as it can be made in ESwv (like this example, check for «Despoblado de Los Millares).

I really thank you all :-) Olea (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Olea: I changed the markers to listings and show/group lines to layer in User:Olea/Workshop1#Paisaje de Vélez Blanco. Isn't this how you want it? –LPfi (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Only that Paisaje de Tahal (where I now did the same change) shows the same markers as Paisaje de Vélez Blanco. Did I do some simple mistake or what is this about? –LPfi (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes. the maps of Tahal and Velez Blanco are the same, combining the elements of each one, which is not the expected result ː-/ Anyway, I can't see the layer attribute described at Template:Listing/doc, but... who knows ː-) Olea (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

IDK how dumb this is or if anyone would use it, but do you think it'd be interesting or useful to have this parameter on the template? Some POIs are super important, and others... less so. But markers will all have the same visual weight on the map. Set it like: `zoomlevel=14|` to only see the marker at zoom 14 and below. Omit to always see the marker. A visitor would probably always want to see the Eiffel Tower, but maybe not always the local boulangerie. Is this even possible technically? Would anyone use it? Is there already some POI clustering algorithm in the works that will magically fix the "too dang many map markers" issue? ButteBag (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think that there is no mechamism/opportunity to include/exclude markers in dependence of the map's zoom level. It is impossible to do this with GeoJSON, and the functionality has to be added to the maplink tag. I think that there is no programmer who would implement this feature which can be used only on Wikivoyage (the opportunity to combine/group separated markers on a single map is not available on Wikipedias). Maybe it makes no sense to ask for such a feature while there are a lot of other map bug/feature tasks. --RolandUnger (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the reply Roland! I'm indifferent to this idea in particular, but it's a bummer to find out there is no way to cluster markers on wikis. I guess the only real solve would be to omit lat/long for "minor" POIs, or hand draw a static map. Neither of which sound very fun to me lol. Is this even a problem for other WVers? Does anyone else find too many markers on a map overwhelming? Thanks! ButteBag (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is only the opinion of a WVer who has learned a few map tricks, but I don't think the problem is in too many markers. Minor POIs can be informative if they're close together or near something more major. As someone who looks at the map before the text, they'd be easy to miss if they're not shown. If I stumbled on a destination with more text than map content, as a casual reader I'd assume most of it was out of date, and once I switch browser tabs to look up an address, odds are low that I'd find myself coming back to read more.

I'd say it just takes practice to use the various maps. Take Buffalo/Downtown as an example of a map with a lot of markers. But if you go into full screen (by clicking the button in the top right of the mapframe), it's manageable to filter by listing type if you know where the layers button is and scroll where you need to. The trick is that I cannot click the map icon in the upper right, or the numbered bullet for an individual listing - the map won't show layers for the listing types. It also won't work if you click the 'enlarge window' icon in the mapframe caption. It's probably a bug, but I also can't click the filter button on the mapframe before going into full screen or the basemap disappears.

A densely packed mapframe can look overwhelming, but at least it's also a signal that there's a lot of information somewhere to discover. Gregsmi11 (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your insights! I'd argue it shouldn't "take practice" to get the maps to show what you want, but yes the larger point of many dozens of markers representing a stronger "this page has good content" signal is probably the most important thing. I guess the "most beautiful way" would be a hand drawn map showing the top 5-9 things that are most popular and unlikely to change, paired with a dynamic map with all the details. I just wish making static maps wasn't so hard! ButteBag (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

First of all my belated thanks to those who sorted out the mess with tram stops, which turned large city maps into cratered moonscapes and small ones into metastatic tumours. This demonstrated the principle that there is such a thing as too many markers. The problem, and therefore the solution, is not technological but cultural, that markers are over-valued, and plonked down by rote without considering whether they assist the traveller. A megablob of markers does not signal a good page to me, and when they're crowded, I can't tell which part to zoom into to find what I seek. I use the "Dom" principle, that there is a hierarchy of markers. If I tell you Paolo's Pizza is next to the Duomo, bet you can find it. If the other way round, you may struggle, and if you mark all the half-dozen places around Piazza Duomo then nobody will find a dom thing. Transport hubs, major POIs and accommodation therefore rank high, others are nice-to-add but not if they obscure the mission-critical markers. Grahamsands (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Is it true that for Wikivoyage:Internal_links he concept of

[[Article#Wikidata ID]]

does not work if the target is not a listing but a marker? And should we adjust that for the sake of completeness?

I noticed some editors are predominantly using markers instead of listings. While I think this is not a good idea, I didn't want to start a discussion on that yet. However, in either case why would we not allow internal links to markers with wikidata ID (or to their name for that matter)?

Cheers Ceever (talk) Ceever (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

That would require updating the template. Do you know how to make that change? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it ever worked for markers, but I will amend {{marker}} so it does. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Ceever, WhatamIdoing: Done – see Hunter#Q57278 for a testcase. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't the ID go before the invoke? Here it doesn't matter, as the span is on the same line as the name, but if there were a line break in the marker (such as before the Wikipedia icon), I assume the (beginning of) the name would not be above the viewport and thus not immediately visible. –LPfi (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ideally the anchor should be added in Module:Marker, to get included in the vcard like the name: <span id="Newcastle" class="fn org listing-name" style="font-weight:bold;"><a href="/voyage/Newcastle_(New_South_Wales)" title="Newcastle (New South Wales)">Newcastle</a></span> LPfi (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Work great, also for just the name of the marker.

Many thanks 🙏 Ceever (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply