Template talk:Cite Google Maps/Archive 1

Updated template
Since Cite map, which this template calls, only allows for linked retrieval dates, now inconsistent with the current preference at MOS:NUM, I've added provisions for unlinked retrieval dates using the parameter "accessyear" in conjunction with either "accessdaymonth" or "accessmonthday". I created template documentation with the usage options and tested the changes in Template:Google maps/sandbox and at here. If this change has caused any unforeseen problem, please revert it and let me know. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Coord
My addition, to the documentation of a reference to Coord has been reverted by two editors, coincidentally both of whom I have an ongoing dispute with elsewhere. no credible reason for its removal has been given, and it's an obvious alternative for editors who may be thinking of using this template to link to maps where a generic coordinate link would be more appropriate. I contend that it should be restored. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Location
I don't get it; Where in an article is the template placed? The example doesn't illustrate this point... אנבה (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * the template is used for citations, so it's place within the  used to create a footnote.  Imzadi 1979  →  18:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Can't get multiple map markers
gives me a map with one marker, but I want two markers and I can't seem to find a way to get them. Am I information-challenged or is this a limitation of the template? If the latter, can it be changed? LADave (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * if you export a link from Google for a set of driving directions from Point A to Point B, for instance, and then use that link within the template, then you'd have a link to a map with a line. So basically, if you can set up a link with two map markers within Google Maps, then that link can be used here. It's not a limitation of our template so much as it is a limitation of Google.  Imzadi 1979  →  18:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

sfn link
@Imzadi1979. Hope you don't mind the ping, but would you happen to know how to get the gmap sfn to link to the reference? Hope you're well! Cheers, ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * until I just edited the template, it wouldn't work because this template didn't support the ref parameter necessary. (If there are multiple citations with the same year, you'll need to use letter as well to differentiate them.) You'll need to use (or similar with the other template options) to get it to work. Unlike a book or a paper map, you wouldn't have an in-source location (page number, grid reference or inset) to include though.  Imzadi 1979   →   23:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I've got that ;) many thanks for going to the trouble of changing the template,, that's much appreciated! Worked a treat now! Cheers,  ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Excessive credit given to Google?
Am I the only one who thinks it's a bit excessive that Google is credited as author (with a link), again as Google Maps (which should be sufficient, I think) and yet again as the publisher (with "Google.")? Why three separate times in one citation? Shouldn't Google Maps be sufficient? Even if some may think they do also deserve the Publisher credit, the linked author credit is definitely over the top. 1980fast (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * They are the author and the publisher of their cartography and mapping service. That they also named the service after themselves cannot be helped either.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Repeating publisher as author
Greetings,

is it necessary for the template to repeat publisher and author? It's both Google, right? This came up here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's fairly standard to cite the source(s) of the cartography for a map or mapping service as an author, even when it's redundant to the publisher. Previous to an update to cite map in 2015, that template put the name of the publisher, when input in publisher, in the author location unless a separate author was specified because so many maps are corporately authored and cited to the corporation like that. Of course not all map citations appear so redundantly; Bing Maps is authored by Microsoft and Nokia, and published by Microsoft, resulting in only partial overlap between authors and publisher.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

misuse of |map= parameter
At a discussion elsewhere, I discovered that this template is likely misusing.

map is treated by in the same way that  treats chapter; the citation using map is a citation of a 'map' in a 'book'. Google maps is not a book so in  should not use map.

Instead, this: should be changed to something like this (not tested): —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Tested this, and the visual appearance is the same, so I implemented the basic change.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Request to remove author parameter
Could someone please remove  so instances of this template do not display the |author= has generic name error message and do not add articles to Category:CS1 errors: generic name? Displaying  is sufficient attribution. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that Google is the author to be attributed for the creation of the map. I've fixed the template so that it no longer produces this spurious error.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for updating the template. Like other editors above, I don't understand how it benefits the reader to list Google as both the author and publisher.  GoingBatty (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Updating of URLS
When I sent my web browser to the URL given in the two examples -- http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=from:+E%20Market%20St/RT-308%20@41.926860,%20-73.912580+to:+RT-308%20@41.970313,%20-73.821096 -- it was sent to https://www.google.com/maps/place/41%C2%B058'13.1%22N+73%C2%B049'16.0%22W/@41.970313,-73.8232847,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x16d1cddd06a6ad7a!8m2!3d41.970313!4d-73.821096?hl=en

You may wish to update this. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 02:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * that would have to be fixed in whichever article you were viewing. The template only passes through the URL provided to it; it doesn't create the URL.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you, . I'm aware of that. My intention was to invite the attention of someone with authority to make a change to (a) the out-of-date URL format (http → https) in the example given, and (b) the change in Google Maps URLs generally (http://maps.google.com ... → https://www.google.com/maps ...). Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 03:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * such changes would probably need to be made in an article-by-article fashion to confirm the continued suitability of the newer links. While a bot, or anyone running AWB/JWB, could change the URI scheme component of the URLs from  to , the rest should be checked manually.  Imzadi 1979   →   05:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC on whether citing maps and graphs is original research
Please see Village pump (policy). Rschen7754 15:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 September 2023
[Background] Generally we don't list both a company and a similarly-named website in references, just one or the other, and we don't use the website/company as an author when there isn't one. But this template lists variations of "Google" three times in each reference, as author, website and publisher. Wikipedia considers Google Maps to an organization, not a website, as evidenced by the fact that within said article it is not italicized.

[Request] List Google Maps as the publisher, no author, no website. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC) Anomalocaris (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Anomalocaris: most of the highway articles that use this also attribute corporate authorship for maps to other organizations in their citations, so changing this one template would suddenly make those articles inconsistently formatted. Nothing prevents you from using cite map to cite a link to Google Maps manually in your preferred format.  Imzadi 1979  →   11:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I went to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Google maps and checked the first transclusions listed. I opened each one and searched for "map" (without quotes).
 * Aarhus: refs include 2 other maps listed without authors, one with only a title and one with a title and publisher, no website. The Google maps link is bogus, it's not a Google map.
 * Buffalo, New York: refs include 4 or 5 maps listed with human authors, several maps without any author at all, no maps with corporate authors, none listing both publisher and website.
 * Copenhagen: 1 Google maps and no other map refs.
 * Detroit: 3 non-Google maps refs, none listed with authors, none listing both publisher and website.
 * Lansing, Michigan: 6 non-Google maps refs, none listed with authors, none listing both publisher and website.
 * Odense: 1 Google maps and no other map refs.
 * Portsmouth: 2 non-Google maps, 1 with human author, 0 with corporate author, none listing both publisher and website.
 * Toledo War: 1 non-Google maps, 1 with human author, 1 with non-human author (this is what I object to)
 * That bad map is a dead link, accessdate is 2006, so it is missing 17 years of evolution of Wikipedia style standards; first Internet Archive is July 15, 2016, already a 301 error; I would argue that the given author should be publisher and given publisher should be via; this example disagrees with my standard and I say it's wrong. But even if it is right, the author and publisher are completely separate entities, so this example doesn't support the use of Google as author of Google maps.
 * Tate Modern: other than "Tate Modern Visitor Map", an unlinked mention of the museum's visitor map, not a real map at all, only Google maps.
 * Economy of the United Kingdom: 1 non-Google maps, no author, listing publisher not website.
 * Hyderabad: only Google maps. There's an article in The Times of India that includes the word "map" in the title, but the article doesn't have a map and the link has no author, publisher or website.
 * United States Numbered Highway System: Several non-Google maps map refs and also Notes, but it's a mess:
 * Two notes that use cite map but lack a URL, so the word "Map", instead of linking to the map, is unlinked.They are templated as
 * ; I would argue that the given author should be publisher.
 * ; I would argue that the given author should be removed as it duplicates publisher.
 * Non-Google maps map refs also use cite map, listing publishers in the author parameter
 * These observations suggest that another search needs to be for pages transcluding cite map ...
 * I went to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:cite map and checked the first transclusions listed. I edited each one and searched for "Cite map".
 * Algeria 1 Cite map without author, lists publisher, not website.
 * American Revolutionary War: 1 Cite map with human authors, lists publisher, not website.
 * Alexander the Great: 1 Cite map with human author, no publisher, no website.
 * Aarhus: 0 Cite map; not sure what's going on here. It's noted above.
 * Acapulco: 1 Cite map; 2 authors that are duplicated but shortened as publishers; the author parameters should be moved to publisher.
 * Arkansas: 2 Cite map, both without author, with publisher, no website.
 * Abadan, Iran: 1 Cite map; author is pathological "((OpenStreetMap contributors))" (without quotes), Wikipedia does not use spurious double parentheses, this is just plain wrong.
 * Ann Arbor, Michigan: 1 Cite map, without author, with publisher, no website.
 * Albert Pike: 1 Cite map; non-human author; publisher, no website.
 * This is a rare case where a non-human author ("Albert Pike Highway Association") makes sense, because in this rare case, author and publisher are completely different entities.
 * Accrington: 1 Cite map, without author, with publisher, no website.

Observations:
 * Other than through Google maps, I found no examples of map references that list both publisher and website. As I said in the first place, "Generally we don't list both a company and a similarly-named website in references, just one or the other." For example, articles in The New York Times are templated as, not  . And as I said, "Wikipedia considers Google Maps to an organization, not a website, as evidenced by the fact that within said article it is not italicized." So at least, remove the website.
 * Two pages listing a non-human author list an organization as author that is different from the publisher.
 * One page listing a non-human author has a 17-year-old dead reference that shouldn't be considered a Wikipedia standard for any purpose.
 * One page listing a non-human author has a pathological author with double parentheses that shouldn't be considered a Wikipedia standard for any purpose.
 * Among more than 20 pages examined, other than through Google maps, only two include non-human authors that duplicate the publisher, viz: United States Numbered Highway System and Acapulco.
 * For Google maps, there is no entity involved in creating the map other than the publisher, moreover, the map is parametric and doesn't even exist until it is requested, so isn't logical to say that it has an author at all.
 * Contrary to Imzadi1979's claim, only about 10–20%, not "most" of the highway articles that use Google maps also attribute corporate authorship for maps to other organizations in their citations.

I reiterate my original request. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The various highway articles using cite MDOT map and analogs all credit the organizational author of a map. In fact, before a major change in 2015, cite map itself listed the publisher in the author space.  Imzadi 1979  →   03:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 14 September 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material  Works  23:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

– For consistency across citation templates, and for proper capitalization of products, I think these templates should be renamed. SWinxy (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Template:Google maps → Template:Cite Google Maps
 * Template:Mapquest → Template:Cite MapQuest
 * Template:Bing maps → Template:Cite Bing Maps
 * Template:OpenStreetMap maps → Template:Cite OpenStreetMap

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nom and to be consistent with Template:Cite maps. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as unnecessary. We also have templates like Template:OpenAI (which is not a navbox) and Template:Amazon (which is not about the rainforest or river). InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Those aren't citation templates, though. SWinxy (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is, template titles don't have to be this descriptive/unambiguous, unlike mainspace articles directed to readers. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support There's no harm in being clearer here. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Clarification and uniformity seems to make sense here. Bestagon ⬡ 19:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)