Template talk:Infobox cave/Archive 1

Locations
I am afraid that including cave locations may offend our USA cavers, as most of their caving organizations have rules against this. It might actually lead to fewer US articles or even deletions in order to shelter their locations. Of course, the location fields could just be left blank, but other Wikipedians will fill them in if the field exists. Would it be possible to allow a Wikipedian to permanently block the location fields in a specific article? Ian mckenzie (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion about this has, in part, occured on the Wikiproject Caves talk page rather than here. At what point does someone jump in and remove the location/coordinates field? I don't think there is concensus on this because only a few project members have voiced an opinion.Ian mckenzie (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As per discussion on the Wikiproject:caves talk page I have removed the Coordinates field (but retained the location field). Please, discuss further before reverting. I believe Location is adequate, while removal of Coords satisfies the concerns of our US members. Ian mckenzie (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I hate to tell you this, Ian; but, I don't believe you did this correctly. You have edited the transcluded documentation for the template with this series of edits (while including a comment which belongs on a talk page, not in the template documentation). But you did not actually change the template itself. I think that the coordinates are handled in the section of markup which looks like:


 * You may want to find someone who is more familiar with template markup to confirm but I think that is the markup that needs to be removed (including the comment introducer from the end of the line before). And, I think you should remove the comment from the documentation page.


 * I am not quite knowledgeable enough to make this change without some more technical advice but I support you in your efforts, here. WTucker (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment; you're right, I'm not too savvy on the technical side. I've removed the errant comments as requested. Perhaps another Wikiproject:Caves participant could help me make this change correctly - maybe the one who set up the infobox - and then we can continue to discuss this. Ian mckenzie (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not heard back from any WikiProject:Caves participant for help on this. Plus, it appears, there is a "coords" tag outside of the caves infobox which is being used everywhere (including caves pages) anyway. I give up. Ian mckenzie (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We really need that infobox corrected. Why do the Coordinates at the top of Cave pages show up? Is that a standard format to include them? If they are unreferenced by a reliable source they are still eligible for deletion. Unless the coordinates themselves are specifically published (instead of just a dot on a map) this precludes their inclusion. If people are making up their own coordinates, that is not reliable. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand what is wrong with the infobox template and what needs to be "corrected" about it. The coordinates parameter is an optional parameter and may be excluded from any use of the template. However, if it is used, the coordinates will "show up" at the top of the page. If the coordinates are unreferenced to a reliable source, they may be challenged and removed. What is the problem with having a coordinates parameter in the template that is unused on some cave articles but used on others? If a specific cave article is particularly sensitive, you could put a comment on the parameter such as


 * What is wrong with that? WTucker (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Because if there's published coordinates, even on a sensitive cave, it is eligible for being on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not about cave location secrecy. It goes against the ethos of Wikipedia to remove a coordinate if it has a reliable source, even for a sensitive cave. Having a coordinate field in the infobox will invite perpetual edits. If you remove coordinates that are reliably published, you are being an unethical Wikipedia editor supposedly. A generic location field is fine, but having coordinates for caves will certainly make U.S. cavers shy away from adding to Wikipedia. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are not being unethical if you have a consensus to remove the coordinates even if reliably sourced. I have seen very few reliable sources for GPS coordinates for caves, especially sensitive U.S. caves. But, even if such a source exists, a consensus to remove can keep those coordinates out of the Wikipedia article. My vote here is to keep the parameter in the infobox and to argue to gain a consensus not to add or to remove coordinates from articles for sensitive caves. Remember that even if the parameter is removed from the template, coordinates can be added to the article without using the template. Also, you might have to argue for oversight on such an edit to remove it from the article history. WTucker (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I'm told by an administrator of the English Wikipedia, it goes against the ethos of wikipedia to delete coordinates if supplied by a reliable reference. No, there are not many reliable sources for coordinates, but with the way we are going, it appears that Wikipedia will be one of those. I also don't want to gather a consensus on every cave location that is disputed. This goes beyond sensitive caves as well. I personally, won't contribute to cave articles that have coordinates, and I certainly don't want to be a hawk and watch for any that spring up. Having the coordinate field omitted makes our jobs much easier. I think that a compromise would be that if someone feels it necessary to have coordinates for any particular cave, they can add it in the main article (perhaps the lede) and it must contain a reference. But having a coordinate field in the infobox is pretty much demanding a coordinate be found for every cave if possible. That does not get my vote. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Per the discussion here and the previous discussion, I have decided to be bold and remove the coordinates parameter from the template. If coordinates are needed (and sourced to a reliable source) on a specific cave article, they can be added outside of the template. Removing the field from the template will remove the temptation to attempt to add coordinates for every cave article. WTucker (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion continues
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Caves

Need Field Definitions on Template page
We should add a definitions table on the template page to specify what should be entered into each entry field. For instance, take a look at. They have it all defined. Whereas, this one is apparently up for interpretation. The Location field could be mistaken for a coordinate field, which it is not. It should be specified as something like "Country, State/Province, and County." All the other fields should be defined too. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

New version in sand box ready to go active
If there are no objections, I will copy the code in the sandbox into the active template soon. The appearance reflects changes to other geographically oriented infoboxs. If you have any suggestions please make them now. I'm thinking the translation, pronunciation and language information should be moved out the the infobox and into the article lead. The sandbox is located at template:Infobox cave/sandbox and the testcases are at template:Infobox cave/testcases. currently there are rows in the original version that are also in the sandbox version that do not currently display any data. – droll  &#91;chat&#93;  09:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good, and I like your suggestion to remove the translation,pronunciation and language to the lead. Sorry about my confusion (hence the deletion of unnecessary comments! Sorry. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Text size
I'd like to propose reducing the text size used in the infobox -- perhaps to something closer to the Template:Infobox River? (e.g. article Anadyr River)

The current size of text becomes clunky once you have more than a few words in each box, and it also makes the table bigger than it needs to be. The changes I would incorporate from the River infobox would be to add a couple of style formatting commands, one:

font-size: 90%;

...to the first line which declares the whole table, followed by:

font-size: larger;

...to the "name" cell, so that the name of the cave is still a decent size. I can add these to the template if there are no objections. In the long term, what would be people's thoughts on developing a more up-to-date Template:Geobox Cave, perhaps along the lines of Template:Geobox River? Fattonyni (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess I never got round to making the change myself; looks like this has now been rectified in the recent overhaul of the template by droll. Nice work! I should note for reference that the redlinked "Geobox River" I alluded to above is now covered by Template:Geobox. Fattonyni (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Undocumented parameters?
There are undocumented parameters in the code for the infobox including: altitude and visitors. I this intentional or just an oversight. – droll  &#91;chat&#93;  18:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the template was originally based on. The parameter of visitors would not apply to all caves, only the commercial ones, and only those that keep track of their numbers. Altitude isn't really necessary for inclusion. I'd just leave that one out, since the infobox is already big as it is. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Good points. I would, however, like to keep them as there are "show caves" that count visitors. Perhaps "altitude" could be defined as the altitude of the primary entrance. I think the documentation could use some editing and I'll work on a sandbox version and we can go from there. – droll  &#91;chat&#93;  19:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Should "altitude" be the highest entrance of the system, rather than the major entrance? Only a thought; it would then mean that the stated depth (if present) would correspond correctly to the lowest altitude limit of the cave, when subtracted fom each other. Fattonyni (talk) 13:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Coordinates
Why cant we show coordinated in the location section of the box? And if its that big of a deal, why not just add a coordinates field to the box? Thanks. --Cygnusloop99 (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Caves and look at the talk on Coordinates. It's something the community doesn't want to add to the cave infobox. If a cave must have coordinates it can be entered in the main body of the text. The reason for excluding coordinates is that it will encourage more coordinates to be entered for caves with sensitive conservation issues. Having a field there is basically begging for coordinates, that's why there is none. That doesn't mean coordinates can be entered into any article, just not in the infobox. And like all edits, they too can be removed if unsourced. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Cygnusloop99 (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't be taken in by that misrepresentative reply; note the section, below, on merging templates. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Geobox
I have proposed that we delete geobox. That may effect this templates. You are invited to particiapte in the Geobox deletion dicussion. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

location_ref
What about the idea to add a location_ref parameter? If this parameter is not supplied with a value, the article is added to a tracking category and the coords are hidden. This would encourage coordinates to be properly sourced and make tracking unsourced articles easier. WTucker (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an excellent idea. How do we code "properly sourced?" Would we have a list of unsourced articles available for review by individual editors to determine quality? Leitmotiv (talk) 07:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how to code this in a template; but, I bet I could figure it out. "Properly sourced" would have to be evaluated by editors. The idea is that unsourced (those with no location_ref value) would be placed in a hidden category such as Category:Wikipedia cave articles with coordinates lacking reference. If it had a value, it could be placed in a different category such as Category:Wikipedia cave articles with referenced coordinates or all such articles could be placed in a category such as Category:Wikipedia cave articles with coordinates. Editors would have to verify the sources to evaluate "properly" just like they do for anything else in Wikipedia. WTucker (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement to provide references within infoboxes, and no justification to hide data in infoboxes if such a reference is not provided there. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a requirement to provide references for everything on Wikipedia as no original research is policy. You must be able to cite reliable sources for any material that is added. Requiring a citation is simply requiring proof that such a source exists. It does not matter whether the material is displayed in an infobox, article text or the caption of a photograph, it must be from a reliable source. I am not set on the hidden idea; but, the tracking category for unsourced coordinates is a very good idea. WTucker (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is indeed a requirement to cite facts. There is no requirement for the reference to be located within infoboxes. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And as PotW knows, the coordinates will be listed in the infobox, so that is where the reference will have to go as well. User:Leitmotiv 15:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not attempt to speak for me; as you clearly lack both the wit and wisdom to do so. The references do 'not have to go in the infobox.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Where does the citation go if not associated with the statement it supports? Besides, I have seen plenty of citations in infoboxes. WTucker (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In the body of the article. The presence of some references in some infoboxes does not mean that they are required, in any. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok I see what PotW is saying. The coordinate (by it's nature very precise), needs a source and it should be in the main article and not in the infobox. However, I would think that this would lead to further confusion among many editors. Editors may see something unsourced and they may not be entirely sure on where to look for the source, assuming they know one is even there. Wouldn't this be an obvious case for WP:Common Sense? Is there some policy on Wikipedia that I can read on how to properly reference something, especially regarding it location on a page? PotW, you seem most knowledgeable, could you provide me with the material? Leitmotiv (talk 21:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again you presume to speak for me; and once again, you misrepresent me. Start your reading at WP:RS. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay be as explicit as possible so I understand you and be sure to address and acknowledge any concerns I have. Generally speaking, citing an entire article doesn't prove anything to me, nor does it prove to me you understand it's content in entirety. So I will start reading at WP:RS. Is there any thing you'd like me to end up reading as well? Leitmotiv (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How is the reader supposed to know that some stray reference in the article is used to support the coordinates? How does this ease verifiabilty? I do not see where there is a problem in the infobox, except that you don't seem to like it. What is the problem? WTucker (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In the same way as for any other infobox fact which is cited in the body of the article. If you wish to amend the MoS in that regard, this is not the place to do it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By "MoS", you are obviously referring to the Manual of Style. That guideline page says nothing about where to cite except not to do so in section headings. Even the most relevant portion of the complete Manual of Style, namely Manual of Style/Infoboxes, says nothing on this topic. Policy has a lot to say on this, however; let me spell it out using policy:
 * WP:NOR says "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented." (emphasis in original)
 * WP:VERIFY says "This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." Coordinates for sensitive geographical locations including some caves are likely to be challenged and if they are challenged, an inline citation is required. (emphasis mine)
 * These policies are repeated at WP:CHALLENGE.
 * WP:VERIFY also says "This policy applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception..." and goes on to say "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed,...".
 * The conclusion seems very clear: inline citations are required for anything in mainspace that is challenged or is likely to be challenged and this includes the infobox. These inline citations must directly support the material.
 * I did find one brief mention in a guideline at WP:CITEFOOT which says "If an infobox or table contains text that needs citing, but the box or table cannot incorporate an inline citation, the citation should appear in a caption or other text that discusses the material." This seems to support what you are saying only if the infobox cannot support the citation. In this case, it can. WTucker (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems my recollection of the MoS is either faulty or outdated; so I apologise. Nonetheless, it is clearly custom and practise - and consensus - that infobox items don't need refs if they are repeating things sourced in the article body. None of what you cite counters that. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're reaching a moot point here. We are designing an infobox with a coordinate field. In other words, by design the infobox is the place where we are choosing to list the coordinates for the article. Having it in the main body seems to defeat the purpose of having a coordinate field listed in the infobox. The infobox makes everything uniform and consistent (the latter being a requirement for WP:Citing Sources), not to mention easier to read and edit. If you want to do coordinates in the main article, then why have a coordinate field in the infobox to begin with? It all seems pretty excessive to have coordinates plastered all over the article. I'd say, keep the coordinates in the infobox and cite them there. Brevity works best and its most visible there. Redundancy will not improve the article. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You make several assumptions, none of which have any foundation. There are plenty of articles with coordinates in the infobox and the body of the article, for one reason or another. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did list WP:Citing Sources which states consistency when citing sources (and is standard procedure outside of Wikipedia as well, who will be viewers of the material here). So when citing a coordinate it should follow immediately thereafter. If that coordinate were to be in the main article, it can be sourced there if preferred, and you're right you wouldn't need to source it again if it appears in the infobox too. But, what is gained by having multiple coordinates all over the article? What is your reasoning for allowing that as a feasible route? I don't think it's hurting the article by keeping coordinates and their citations to the infobox. It's certainly not detracting from visibility. I think for sake of editing, citing coordinates in the infobox helps everyone out. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You're still reading things into my comments, which aren't what I've said. I've made no argument for putting coordinates in the body of an article; I've simply noted that that's what happens; and is perfectly acceptable to the community at large. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I try not to read into your comments, but obviously I am not digesting your posts the way you'd like me too. I think it's because you don't go into enough detail for me. Honestly, to my own eyes it looks like you says things just to sound contrary. But it's hard for me (at least) to understand you at times, because you are too brief. Please help both of us out and provide more info (especially on why you are talking about the things you mention. Basically I need meta-talk from you.). I know that Wikipedia does post coordinates elsewhere in articles and it's accepted. But that doesn't make it proper nor intuitive, especially in light of the consistency demanded for citations. I also don't think it helps editors in their editing process. It just makes sense to me to cite the coordinates in the infobox, since we are designing an infobox to display coordinates for the article. And this will cut down on redundancy. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying editors shouldn't be able to cite coordinates in an infobox; just that it isn't and shouldn't be mandatory to do so. If you disagree, the place to overturn community consensus is not on the talk page of a single infobox. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay I understand. I'm not suggesting it either. But I am suggesting that at least for Cave infoboxes, the preferred method for citing coordinates be in the infobox to help those editors who edit cave articles, and for all the reasons I listed previously. Will editors of cave articles meet opposition from you regarding this? I really feel that editing against this proposal gains little to nothing for these cave articles. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Mandatory"? That is the key disagreement here? If so, then I think we are in agreement as I too do not see that citations for coordinates are mandatory. A citation is only required when the coordinates are challenged; and, in that case, it is WP policy which says so. In the case of caves, public show caves are unlikely to be challenged; and when so, a ref can probably be provided. European caves are unlikely to have their coordinates challenged; and even when so, a reference can probably be provided. Private, sensitive and those that are deemed "significant" according to the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act may be challenged; and when so, it is more unlikely that a ref can be provided as those do not appear on maps. In any case, a ref is only mandatory or required if the coordinates are challenged. So, this agreement pretty much puts to rest the hidden behavior suggested above if a ref is not provided. WTucker (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy, could you refer me to where this consensus was reached concerning all infoboxes? I'd like to review it. And additionally, could you direct me to where I could try to overturn that consensus or make an exception for cave infoboxes? Leitmotiv (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I say above; it's reached through custom and practise. There won't be an exception for cave infoboxes; but we have a village pump for proposals. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy, it appears to me that your are suggesting prior consensus exists when you mention "[overturning]" a consensus, but you offer no discussion page showing this prior consensus, and then turn around and only offer that it's "custom" and done through "practice." It sounds like customizing through practice is the very thing we are doing here. Do you intend to make edits in opposition of that? Leitmotiv (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added a coordinates ref to the sandbox version for consideration. I decided to name it "coordinates ref" because the corresponding parameter is named "coordinates". Let me know what you think. Note that the tracking categories only work in mainspace. Also note that it is entirely optional. WTucker (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Rolled out
I have rolled out the coordinates ref parameter. There are now two tracking categories: Category:Wikipedia cave articles with unreferenced coordinates, and Category:Wikipedia cave articles with referenced coordinates. WTucker (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks- and now the latter category isn't empty. tedder (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The former name is inappropriate, since (as I've pointed out previously) coordinates may be referenced elsewhere in the article. It should be something along the lines of "Category:Wikipedia cave articles with no coordinates reference in the infobox". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The page for the unreferenced coordinates on cave articles will be a good repository to verify for original research. Thanks. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Registries
With regards to UK caves, the fields "registry" and "registry_id" link directly to the official on-line registries for cave entrances locations eg: http://www.mcra.org.uk/registry/sitedetails.php?id=240 This is one of the reasons why UK caves are a special case. To generalize from this, I would think that cave locations rarely appear as isolated disclosures of a single cave (unless it is in some recent digging report). Usually, by the nature of cavers over the years, information like this is collected up into huge tabulations where it can be found and used. I've seen the same for caves in Austria and Majorca. And when you get databases like that it might as well be worth it to systematically cross-reference to the ids directly.Goatchurch (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do such links meet WP:EL? I'd support their use, but I've seen similar links removed from other infoboxes after I've included them. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the intention that they should. I am in correspondence with the people who make those registries (the Mendip one goes back to the 1950s, so is long lasting), and if there is a specific shortcoming in any matter with regards to linking, it could be addressed.Goatchurch (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * POTW, it's very common in the UK to link the Ofsted and DfE in the infobox- IIRC, it's done somewhat automatically based on the ID. As an example: Churston Ferrers Grammar School. tedder (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've added those paramters in Infobox cave/sandbox. Please test. are ether any other, non-UK, registries which also ought to be catered for? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A bit late but the Austrians have a system, I bet others do as well http://expo.survex.com/katast.htm AndrewAtkinson (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge from Template:Infobox ukcave
Template:Infobox ukcave was nominated for discussion at Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 22. I've closed the discussion with consensus to Merge based on the lack of valid arguments to keep separate templates, however the details of the merger will need discussion to ensure that the valid concern over the possible addition of unsourced or poorly-sourced coordinate data is addressed. I offer the following suggestions to get discussion started: HTH. Anomie⚔ 00:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be trivial to add a location_ref parameter, which if omitted while other location parameters were specified would place the article in a tracking category something like Category:Wikipedia cave articles with coordinates lacking reference. This could also prevent display of the coordinate data as with Template:Infobox ukcave's no, if this is desired.
 * It would also be trivial to have any use of the location features place the article in a tracking category something like Category:Wikipedia cave articles with coordinates. This might actually make it easier for editors to patrol cave articles to ensure that coordinates really are appropriately sourced.
 * To address the "bypassing the infobox in favor of coord" issue, you should be able to use WP:CatScan to look for pages containing the infobox and coord but lacking Category:Wikipedia cave articles with coordinates. If not, a bot could easily enough maintain such a list.
 * As for coordinate data appearing in the article history, again you have that problem anyway. In some cases, WP:BLPPRIVACY may apply so you could get it oversighted. Otherwise, your best bet would be to try to get consensus for applying WP:REVDEL to this data in general, but that discussion would probably best be held elsewhere.
 * The documentation should certainly lay out the situation and suggest that coordinates should generally not be provided for caves in the US and other countries where disclosure is generally not done.


 * "The documentation should certainly lay out the situation and suggest that coordinates should generally not be provided for caves in the US and other countries where disclosure is generally not done." No, it most certainly should not. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and there is no justification whatsoever for such a statement, in the TfM or elsewhere. Nor do BLP polices apply to caves. Nor is there any justification for requiring references in infoboxes, when they can be legitimately provided elsewhere in an article. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * BLP policies may apply to posting coordinates of the property of private individuals, just as it applies to posting their street addresses. As for "no justification for references in infoboxes", observe the large number of "_footnotes" parameters in Template:Infobox settlement for just one example. At any rate, why not cooperate in addressing the concerns of other editors instead of trying to continue some sort of war here? Anomie⚔ 15:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not prepared to cooperate in enabling CoI edits by those who have revealed that their purpose for editing Wikipedia is to prevent the inclusion of permissible information. Infobox settlement does not require references to ge given within the infobox, in the manner which you suggest. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Coordinates for commercial caves are perfectly admissable as I've stated before, so I'm not sure who PotW is referring to. But as Anomie pointed out, coordinates for privately held caves is in violation of BLP policies. And that would be my foremost concern with any coordinate posted on U.S. caves at this juncture in time. Secondly, like any proper article on Wikipedia, relevant information needs a suitable source, especially something as precise as coordinates. I'm willing to bet most commercial caves have some suitable source on the internet. So... Anomie, you're right, any coordinate appearing in the main body is something you're not going to escape (from any article for that matter) so I would think it shouldn't be much of a focus for the template or bots. The real issue here is for Wikipedia to discern if a cave is public or private and in some cases that can be extremely difficult and may have to be done on a case by case basis (generally speaking, in the U.S., caves east of the Mississippi tend to be on private land, with those west of the Mississippi being on federal land. This is a quirk of how the U.S. was pioneered and settled and coinciding U.S. legislation passed by president Theodore Roosevelt establishing large swathes of land to be saved from development). I would say, for now, that your suggestion of a bot maintenance list would suffice as things presently stand. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Anomie did not say "coordinates for privately held caves is in violation of BLP policies"; nor are they. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right... and splitting hairs again. He said "may." And in most cases posting coordinates to a privately held cave is exactly the same as posting a personal street address. I'd say that's restricted. But whatever, you already said you're beyond cooperation. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no prohibition on posting the street address - or coordinates - of notable, privately owned buildings. We list thousands. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But is the privately held building used in a public manner? We're talking about personal/private residences and property with caves that if they so desire may wish to remain undisclosed. Not privately owned executive buildings in the middle of downtown that are licensed out and want to attract tenants. There is a huge difference between the two. I hope you are not trying to make such a comparison. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "But is the privately held building used in a public manner?" many are not, no. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok great. So this entire discussion was to parse out that there are two different kinds of buildings which you are now acknowledging. Are you ready to cooperate yet? So theoretically, if a wiki article existed on my private home referencing myself living at such and such location (sources exist), referenced by nonlocal sources (sources exist) and is referenced on a government site noting tax upgrades to my property (that source exists too), including, say a theoretical cave on my property, and then take that property information address and convert it to a coordinate using some simple map site (source exists).... you'd be okay with that in the name of zero censorship or purely because you feel not doing so would cater to a special interest group? What if it was your home with all these references? Squarely put to PotW: Does Wikipedia's policy restrict publishing personal information on you or your private (not private as in class, but private as in personal) possessions? Leitmotiv (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BLP. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No that's ok, I want to read a response from you on this discussion page, specifically regarding your home or mine. I'm getting too much grease on my hands. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer an honest reply PotW. Any nonresponse or indirect response is not productive. If you are unwilling to give direct replies then perhaps discussion threads are not for you? Just a thought. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Moving on, it seems that the biggest concern at the moment is posting coordinates to caves residing on personal residences or personal property. I don't think it's reasonable to separate someone's personal possessions from their personhood when information on those personal possessions is disclosed using coordinates (which serves the same purpose as a street address and is even more precise). Would anyone be able to supply us a reason as to how disclosing coordinates to a cave on a personal residence does not violate WP:BLPPRIVACY when that cave is not advertised commercially? And will that rationale be able to be properly coded/flagged into the template? Leitmotiv (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you wish to claim that publishing the coordinates of a particular cave or caves, already published elsewhere, breaches WP:BLPPRIVACY; then you will need to make that case, with reasoning, and referencing a specific case or cases. You cannot obtain a generic ban on publishing such coordinates by citing WP:BLPPRIVACY, nor by expecting others to justify publishing such coordinates with respect to it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The qualifying words in your paragraph are "published elsewhere." In most cases, I would wager that coordinates for caves on personal residences have not been published. It is those I'm referring to presently. For those with previously published coordinates, even when the owner still desires privacy, you are saying Wikipedia will not respect that privacy? Strictly because the information has been previously published, with consent or not, and possibly in regard to previous owners with different intentions? Leitmotiv (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, please see WP:BLP. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again, please don't cite entire articles and be so very inexplicit per my requests above. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(Hm, there might have been a lack of "valid" arguments to not merge, but there is without doubt no shortage of arguments.) Unfortunately I don't have time to get deeply involved in the coding this minute. But I might point out that the reason I broke away with Infobox ukcave was to provide the necessary room to develop the infobox into something less ugly without getting into a terminal edit war. You might find it easier to work on any merges in Infobox ukcave until they are binary compatible and then map it in.Goatchurch (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverts etc
We now have a situation where Leitmotiv is reverting edits (to the template and its documentation) which merge parameters from the UK cave infobox; and forum shopping in an attempt to prevent the publication of cave coordinates. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh. To my understanding I thought Anomie said to do an easy merge and started the above discussion on how to do that. Since that discussion hasn't been resolved yet, wouldn't your merge edits be a little premature? Regarding your forumshopping comment. I am indeed seeking a second opinion and will be seeking a third, because I don't think one sole editor or circle of editors knows everything there is to know about Wikipedia and its policies. I have learned very quickly, that people edit things all the time in name of WP:such and such, only to have it overturned later. That's because they went forumshopping as you put it, but it may just be looking for different expertise, perhaps something that trumps. What I do find more concerning, and everyone here should too, is that PotW is stalking me on the internet, perusing non-Wikipedia pages that have specifically been taken down for unrelated reasons, and then trying to apply the information found within against me on the COI noticeboard. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * " PotW is stalking me on the internet, perusing non-Wikipedia pages that have specifically been taken down for unrelated reasons" - Provide evidence, or withdraw that unwarranted slur. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well PotW the burden to provide proof also lies in providing passwords to my accounts that tracked you as perused the material. By the way you sound funny when you say [Provide evidence, does not compute!] which is totally different from the alternative you could have said: "I did not." It's not about what you say, but what you don't say. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, discuss the template on this talk page. Discuss users on their talk page or using this. DR. tedder (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're making the accusation, Leitmotiv; you prove it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Merging from UK Cave Infobox
This template is to be merged with Infobox ukcave, in order that we have a single template suitable for global use. Other than coordinates, what parameters need to be copied across? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can get location_area, location_lat, location_lon to stay in the Infobox cave (without mysteriously disappearing next week) where they can create that location map, I can be responsible for hacking all the other values. The other stuff of interest is the lengths in metres (I'll do more homework on that.  Think it should be length_m and length_ft instead of that very unfriendly general length template you sometimes get) and the registry_id thing.Goatchurch (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger completed
The merger has been completed. Currently there are no articles that transclude Infobox ukcave.&#32;– droll  &#91;chat&#93;  22:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your extensive work on this. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Image on Welsh language Wiki
Can someone take alook at this page please. As you can see, the map isn't perfect. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)