Template talk:Infobox observatory

Number of telescopes
The template can currently cope with up to six telescopes. If more telescopes need to be on the template, then please let me know (or add support for them yourself). Mike Peel 22:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't suppress false or confusing information from Wikidata
I have removed this template from the article Mount Wilson Observatory because it insisted on importing false information from Wikidata, namely, that the 200-inch Hale telescope was located at Mount Wilson. This template should redesigned so that it won't import any telescopes from Wikidata if any telescope parameters are completed in the template. Otherwise false or duplicate information may be imported from Wikidata. Any normal user will be mystified as to the templates behavior if information is being mashed together from two different sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . It looks like you fixed this by this edit on Wikidata, so I've added the infobox back to the article. Given the edit timing, I suspect you might have been seeing the telescope mentioned in the infobox even after you removed it from Wikidata, which might have been due to caching (add ?action=purge to the URL of an article to completely refresh it). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The infobox needs to be fixed so that if even a single telescope is filled in in the template. Otherwise the listing becomes redundant at best, with telescopes being listed as a comma-separated list after "Telescopes" (with the word Telescopes over to the side of the infobox) and after the word Telescopes, centered in the infobox, with the telescopes listed each on its own line. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe the present behavior is not in accord with Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2. I as whether this is going to be fixed by the person/people who have been developing this template. If I do not see an affirmative response, I will open an RfC to press this matter. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, telescope lists from Wikidata will no longer show in infoboxes if telescope1_type has been set as per this edit. That's not great, as I'm trying to transition this template to use information from Wikidata in a more compact way than before (and I originally created this template along with the existing structure way back when), but it might help smooth the transition process. I don't appreciate threats: please don't make them in future. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've spent a bit of time updating the Mount Wilson Observatory infobox, Wikidata entry(s), and Commons categories. They all still need work - please can you help with this? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It would seem that if the edit works as intended, the matter is settled. I will have a look at the Mount Wilson page. I visited there once, way back when, but I'm sure a lot has changed since then. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for comments: Satisfy verifiability related RfC?
Does this "Infobox observatories" follow the letter, or spirit, of "Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2", which discussed whether importing data from Wikidata (which is not a reliable source because it is based on data added by unvetted users, just as Wikipedia is not a reliable source because it is edited by unvetted users) adhered to the verifiability policy. The conclusion was "It is appropriate to modify existing infoboxes to permit Wikidata inclusion when there is no existing English Wikipedia data for a specific field in the infobox". This infobox displays all the telescopes that can be found either entered by Wikipedia editors, or contained in the Wikidata item for the observatory. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments on RfC: Satisfy verifiability related RfC?

 * As originator of the RfC, I contend that the infobox is not in accord with the Wikidata Phase 2 RfC. I believe a Wikipedia editor should be able to suppress the display of any (potentially false) telescopes from Wikidata by filling in one or more telescope parameters. In addition to being a verifiability issue, it is a matter of poor design. If the same telescope is filled in by a Wikipedia user and also present in Wikidata, it will be displayed twice. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * which is not a reliable source because it is based on data added by unvetted users, just as Wikipedia is not a reliable source because it is edited by unvetted users is irrelevant. We are not citing Wikidata. which discussed whether importing data from Wikidata adhered to the verifiability policy is a mis-characterization of the phase 2 RFC. The conclusion is clear, and you highlighted it yourself. --Izno (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, you can override the list of telescopes in this template and show the individual entries for telescopes by setting "telescope1_type" (and then the rest of the telescopeN_ parameters to set the rest of the info). In addition to that, you can pass the "telescopes" parameter to manually set the list of telescopes. As says, this isn't an issue about whether or not Wikidata is a reliable source. Wikidata is one of the Wikimedia projects, so this is an internal transclusion, in exactly the same way that images are based on Wikimedia Commons. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears the recent edit will settle the matter. As an aside, Wikipedia traditionally has been more relaxed about verifiability with images out of necessity; you can't paraphrase an image the way you can paraphrase other copyrighted works, so the copyright laws create an incentive to use pictures taken by editors. One way or another, information presented in infoboxes must be verifiable. Overriding importation of data from Wikidata and providing a footnote within the infobox can be one way to achieve this. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to note: the edit to get this template to work as I described above was made to the template before this RfC started. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, is it possible to set up a way to edit Wikidata values from Wikipedia? In my mind, if an infobox is displaying incorrect Wikidata values, the right way to go about this is to change the Wikidata values to the correct ones, not to add the correct values here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that would be preferable. I believe there is a gadget on a handful of Wikipedias--I just checked to see if I could find it on Wikidata (mainspace or at d:WD:Tools) but it's not immediately obvious. I'm pretty sure there's also a phabricator task for making it pretty to edit from client, but it's not jumping out at me now. --Izno (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Question posted on Wikidata's project chat. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A citation to a reliable source should be displayed in the Wikipedia article, unless the information is easy to find and not controversial (Paris is the capital of France). One way to do that is to not only have the claim in the infobox, but also in the body of the article, and provide the citation in the body of the article. But if the claim needs a citation and the claim is only in the infobox, then the citation has to be in the citation box too. Wikidata doesn't currently provide a way to do that. The citation is required by the verifiability policy, and this requirement is non-negotiable (unless you can manage to get the the verifiability policy changed).
 * Another issue is that if one is going to fix the claim in both Wikipedia and Wikidata, you're confronted with the very poor support for citations in Wikidata. Unless you can just stick in a URL, creating a citation in Wikidata is a lot of work, and requires learning several new skills. Of course no RfC participant would ever suggest merely copying a correct value in Wikipedia that is supported by an appropriate citation to Wikidata without also putting a reference to the same source in Wikidata; otherwise Wikidata editors wouldn't know whether to believe the old value or the new value. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In theory, it should be possible to define the attributes of a reference on Wikidata, and then transclude that reference into the Wikipedia article by automatically populating something like citation. The first step there is to make sure there are the relevant (reference) properties on Wikidata - I've been exploring this a bit at (look under the elevation above sea level reference), and it seems to be getting there, but there's still a way to go. Then there's the technical question of how to do the transclusion, and also how to make it easier to add references on Wikidata (it should be as easy as it is here, where you can auto-fill from a URL). There's a lot of questions that need answering there, but in the long run I hope that this will be possible. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think (the birth date 28 January 1700 Julian, which is the preferred birth date) would be a more promising approach. The approach allows one item to be use as a reference dozens or hundreds of times; all that is necessary is to add appropriate page qualifiers for each place it is used. Access date qualifiers could also be added for each use, if applicable. And if it were a normal website, the URL could just be added to the item for the work. There is still the problem that we have with all infoboxes, with or without Wikidata, that the infobox doesn't know what citation style the article is using, so can't emit an appropriate citation format. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That style only works if the reference itself has a Wikidata entry. I'm not sure that makes sense for website references, but for others (particularly journal refs) it might work quite well. I'd expect it would be possible to switch between different types of references by detecting the properties used in the Wikidata entry. For matching citation format, perhaps a switch in an infobox would be needed. But this is thinking a bit ahead of ourselves at the moment. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * We have the code available to read references from Wikidata, for example as used at Module:Sandbox/RexxS/WdRefs. There's even a function getSourcedValue in Module:WikidataIB that only returns values when they are sourced to something other than Wikipedia, so it's quite possible to make a function that gets a value and its associated reference(s). If we were content to use CS1 citations by default, it wouldn't be too difficult to assemble them from what's available on Wikidata. Otherwise, we would still be able to use locally supplied parameters and references in place of what would be returned from Wikidata.
 * Adding references to Wikidata claims is a very necessary job. There are several tools to help and I can recommend DuplicateReferences and Drag'n'drop (available from your Preferences|Gadgets tab on Wikidata). The first one allows you to copy the same reference to other statements in the entry, and the second enables you to drag references from the Wikipedia article onto the Wikidata entry to create the reference there.
 * Providing a link to edit the data on Wikidata already has multiple solutions. The French provide a link next to each value fetched from Wikidata and I've shamelessly stolen the idea to use in Module:WikidataIB as shown in the demo infobox on the right. In general, most of the challenges raised here have fairly good solutions available. It just needs editors to adjust to making best use of Wikidata. --RexxS (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , where is the documentation for "Drag'n'drop". I clicked the box in Gadgets and saved the change, and nothing happened that would give me the slightest clue how it works. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Magnus can be a bit terse with his documentation. Try https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP-qJIkjPf0 - essentially, you look on Wikidata in the box with the links to Wikipedia articles, where you'll see clickable links like this [ref]. Those create an interface to the Wikipedia article on the right side of the screen (it's best using a widescreen monitor). Then you can just drag the appropriate reference from there onto the Wikidata statement to create the reference. Just to gild the lily, I have another monitor where I already have the Wikipedia article open, so that I can quickly find the correct reference to support each of the Wikidata claims. HTH --RexxS (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * got a Legobot notice. Can this RFC be written to be more specific? I read this general question "Does this "Infobox observatories" follow the letter, or spirit, of "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2". CuriousMind01 (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Possibly related issue at Royal Observatory, Greenwich talk page
Please see Talk:Royal Observatory, Greenwich. I've never used the API, but an editor reports that the API does not provide any coordinates from the Royal Observatory, Greenwich article. This might possibly be related to the fact that the Infobox observatory in this article does not directly contain the coordinates, rather, the coordinates are imported from Wikidata. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is something that needs raising at Template talk:Coord. It may be that it's not generating the necessary metadata when values are fetched from Wikidata. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not being an editor of Infobox observatory, I don't intend to be the one to raise it. I have no first hand knowledge that Infobox observatory calls, invokes, or whatever Template:Coord. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! I've now raised it there. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Template serving the map instead of the photo to API
I can't understand exactly how this template is interacting with wikidata, but something seems to be wrong in that the API serves up the map image instead of the infobox photo (eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&format=xml&prop=pageimages&titles=Sherwood%20Observatory), for articles that use this infobox. Regular infoboxes ignore the map and give the photo instead. Is this a bug, or have I misunderstood how infoboxes work? --Gapfall (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is something that needs reporting at phabricator. I don't know how the API works, or how it chooses the page images to show, but it sounds like it's an issue with how the image is fetched from Wikidata and how the API interprets that. Maybe might know if there's something that can be fixed in the modules here, but otherwise it needs the API devs to have a look at it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've started a phabricator ticket for this and the coordinate issue. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Gapfall (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Template can't deal with multiple images
If Wikidata has multiple images, this template throws a redlink instead of showing one or all images. This happens fairly frequently, see e.g. the current versions of Lick Observatory, Mount Wilson Observatory, Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex, ... Fram (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. It should now be fairly systematically fixed by using getPreferredValue rather than getValue. Although ideally we would set a maximum of 1 value to be retrieved, so I've requested this at Module_talk:WikidataIB. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Locations and cites
This might be a good place to follow up on your comments at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_15 (since this isn't directly related to Cite Q). First, Francis, apologies for my edit summary when I reverted his edit at - I hadn't noticed this part of the discussion then.

Fram, you said "Another example. Bagnoud Observatory uses the infobox observatory, which gets populated through Wikidata, and where the location uses the value from the Wikidata location fields (Saint-Luc, Canton of Valais, Switzerland), but the reference from the GRID, "GRID Release 2017-05-22, 22 May 2017, doi:10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.5032286, Wikidata Q30141628". Well, actually, it doesn't use the actual identifier from the GRID, which is in this case this, but it uses the reference for the identifier, which is an URL found in another Wikidata item. That URL doesn't go to the GRID site, but to a share where the GRID database is available for download. This is an extremely un-userfriendly and roundabout way to present a reference to an editor, and we can't simply change the reference either at the article or in Wikidata. To make matters worse, the actual reference used (assuming you eventually found it) states that the Observatory is in Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland, not in Saint-Luc, Valois, Switzerland. To be clear, the correct location is Saint-Luc, Valois. Confusing, no? Fram (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)"

I agree that the GRID reference is not very useful here. I've asked about that on his Wikidata talk page. In this case it's only used to reference the country, though, not the location within that country. I've added the ofxb reference to Wikidata, and this is now more clear, although I know that doesn't solve the general problem here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "apologies for my edit summary when I reverted his edit at " – apologies accepted. I understand this means that the infobox can be removed from the article until issues are settled. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * done – A first issue that needs to be settled is that an infobox should never contain pre-programmed references (I think, at least that seems a basic requirement to me). Content of an infobox should be covered in the body of the article, with references in the body. Then, an infobox summarizes that content. Exceptionally, an infobox can contain information that needs to be referenced in the infobox: but then never in a way that can not be edited in the article itself (i.e. an editor of the article should be able to treat the content in the body of the article and move the reference from the infobox to the article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it's good to include the references, and they can be reused elsewhere in the article by using wikidata. There's nothing at Infobox that says that they are forbidden (although I understand that they aren't significantly encouraged). However, it is easy to disable them here by using "refs=no". See this version of the Bagnoud Observatory article to see that in action. If needed, we could set refs=no as the default. Does that help in this situation? As for the content also being in the body of the article, it can be added if any editor wants to do so. ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Tx. The default value for the refs parameter should be "no" though. So that if a Wikipedia editor opens a Wikipedia mainspace page containing such refs in such an infobox, in edit mode they can find the "refs=" parameter in the infobox and can know where the refs are coming from, and turn them off without having to leave edit mode, nor having to go to another website, nor having to understand what wikidata is and how it works.
 * Especially as most of these refs are currently in Cite Q format, which, if I understand correctly, has only been allowed for limited mainspace trials: a few pages testing the infobox implementation of this template would be enough. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: applied the same, i.e. refs defaulting to "no", to Infobox telescope --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Are there other issues here, or would you be happy to add the infobox back to Bagnoud Observatory's page now? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether the article passes WP:GNG, so instead of obsessing (excuse my French) over the infobox, could you maybe first work on the article's text and references (so that also the "no references" template can be removed)? tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done a quick rewrite of it. The NYTimes article on its founding should be sufficient to establish notability. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Infobox World Heritage Site is the last of three infoboxes which I found containing automatic refs (also defaulted to "no" now), so sure, go ahead with the Bagnoud infobox. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Found a fourth one: Infobox museum/wikidata, but that is one with few transclusions, probably intended for testing, so didn't touch its refs settings. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * #5: Infobox lighthouse: refs defaulted to "no". --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You might want to continue looking... Mike Peel (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * #6: Infobox artwork/wikidata: refs defaulted to "no" while it has quite a few implementations, and there is already another for testing (see #4 above). I'm working through the list of those that use the "Cite Q" feature (first). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Use word 'elevation' instead of 'altitude'
If the following differentiation[1] between these two words is satisfactory, I suggest using the former instead of the latter.

[1] https://english.stackexchange.com/a/16747 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.117.201.26 (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be rather confusing as 'elevation' in astronomy also refers to the vertical angle that the telescope is at. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Mapframe maps?
Infobox building and Infobox shopping mall have both recently been updated to automatically show dynamic mapframe maps by default. I am proposing to similarly show such maps by default for this template, with the same optional parameters to adjust the size, frame center point, initial zoom level, and marker icon; and to similarly allow the mapframe map to be turned off using no. See Template:Infobox building and Template talk:Infobox building for further information. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 15:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended support for qid
I just extended support for qid to the coordinates and location maps for Paul G. Comba. this required adding support for qid to Module:Coordinates, passing qid to coord and wikidata location map, and adding support for qid to wikidata location map. let me know if this causes any problems. Frietjes (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making those changes. Ideally there should only be one infobox on a page... You might want to use "child=yes" to embed this infobox in the main one there, or consider splitting out the observatory into a separate article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Mike Peel, see Articles for deletion/Prescott Observatory. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that in time. Ah well. Mike Peel (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Observatory code problem
The Observatory code field is not returning a linked code. Instead the entry reads something like [List of observatory codes#050 050] for Stockholm Observatory. The link code should be 050 instead. Unless the idea was to produce 050. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Did something change in WikidataIB? It should be returning two square brackets rather than one here.
 * Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . Yes, I separated out the handling for external identifiers from that of strings, so that we could link to external sites for them. Sorry, I'd forgotten about this use of.
 * It's really difficult in templates to change from a wikilink to an external link, but much easier to change from an external link to a wikilink. So if we want to use the in an internal (wiki-) link, we can use:
 * I've amended Template:Infobox observatory/sandbox and it looks right to me when I tested it in Stockholm Observatory. Will you check it out and update Template:Infobox observatory if you're happy with it? --RexxS (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. Mike Peel (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's really difficult in templates to change from a wikilink to an external link, but much easier to change from an external link to a wikilink. So if we want to use the in an internal (wiki-) link, we can use:
 * I've amended Template:Infobox observatory/sandbox and it looks right to me when I tested it in Stockholm Observatory. Will you check it out and update Template:Infobox observatory if you're happy with it? --RexxS (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. Mike Peel (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've amended Template:Infobox observatory/sandbox and it looks right to me when I tested it in Stockholm Observatory. Will you check it out and update Template:Infobox observatory if you're happy with it? --RexxS (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. Mike Peel (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Removing Wikidata association
I'm using infobox person and on the same page: Gennadiy Borisov. uses "Also known as" from as the value for alt_names, which is wrong in this case, and provides an "[edit on Wikidata]" link to  at the bottom of the box, which is also wrong in this case. How do I tell to not use Wikidata (as there's currently no Wikidata item for MARGO observatory)? — UnladenSwallow (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You can set  to completely disable Wikidata, or use e.g.,   to suppress individual fields. BTW, it's not good practice to have two infoboxes on one page, you can embed this template in infobox person by using  . Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have embedded in  . That didn't stop  from being erroneously populated with values from, which is clearly a bug—embedded infoboxes should not use the article's Wikidata item by default. So I've used your recommended solution, fetchwikidata=NONE , to remove misplaced values. Unfortunately, it didn't remove the "[edit on Wikidata]" link to , which seems like another bug—if I specify that I don't want to fetch Wikidata values, then I certainly don't want a link to edit them. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the template to hide the 'edit on wikidata' link when fetchwikidata=NONE. Normally the attached Wikidata item is the one that you want to use in an article - and ideally here you would have a separate article on the observatory - but you can specify a qid manually if needed, although here that doesn't work since the observatory doesn't yet have a Wikidata item. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the fixes! It works great.
 * I also have a proposal. Let's make the API easier to use by allowing qid=none . That's an intuitive way of saying "don't associate any Wikidata item with this infobox" (cause there's none). If later a corresponding Wikidata item is created, this can be easily changed to qid=NUMBER . The API consumers won't have to remember fetchwikidata and suppressfields parameters unless there's an express need to customize the list of Wikidata fields used. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have posted my proposal at . — UnladenSwallow (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

location parm being ignored
It's been reported by here that, effectively, the location parm specified at Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex is being ignored, with the value shown coming from Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex's (d:Q618630) "location" (d:Property:P276) property Mojave Desert's (d:Q184355) second (of four) "located in the administrative territorial entity" (d:Property:P131) properties –  Utah (d:Property:Q829) –  which is wrong in this case (it's in the part of the Mojave desert that's in California). This happens despite the Infobox having an explicit value for the location (Mojave Desert, California) that seems to be ignored and should override the wikidata fetch, right? —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 05:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I checked yesterday and the invocation of the template had two different location parameters. Perhaps the code that checks for duplicate parameters is hosed. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There isn't any code that checks for duplicate parameters that I'm aware of.
 * The second value of the location is passed to the embedded Infobox observatory and only affects the display of the second part of the infobox, as expected. It has no effect on the Infobox observatory itself.
 * The first value of the location is passed to Infobox observatory and should override the value fetched from Wikidata, However, the logic in  in the template definition is borked, using a mixture of Wikidata calls that don't respond uniformly to locally supplied overrides. If you compare   →  with   →, you'll see that it can do the job and Template:Infobox observatory/sandbox makes that change for  . Previewing Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex with Infobox observatory/sandbox, with and without the first location shows that it works with that article (because California is the first value of  in ).
 * However, I can't predict how it would affect other observatory articles if the main template is updated from the sandbox. At present, we don't have a fool-proof algorithm for fetching a location from Wikidata, so a local override is always going to be necessary. --RexxS (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rexx. I've confirmed that the sandbox version of the template works much better for the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex article.
 * I'll leave it to you to figure out if/when/how you can release your upgraded template. (It sounds to me like releasing it would be a good idea, but I'm no expert on this template, and I can sympathize with the concern about its unknown effect on other articles.)
 * In the meantime, I was going to see about fixing the data in Wikidata, but now I'm not 100% sure what's going on there, either. If I'm understanding you correctly, the "broken" version of the template is picking at random from the four P131 values, while the fixed version is picking the first.  But of course picking the first isn't ideal, either, because there's no good way to control that in Wikidata.  Is there any thought to picking the preferred value?  (Right now Q184355 doesn't have a preferred value for P131, but I suppose it could.) —Steve Summit (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that should use the location parameter if it's given. If not, it should use the   (P276) property of the article's wikidata item (Q618630) + ", " +   (P131) of the same wikidata item (Q618630). If Q618630 doesn't have a P131, it should get the second part of the displayed location from the P131 of the item to which P276 points (Q184355). This allows overriding the defaults at different levels as needed. (Which may well be what the sandbox version now does –  I haven't worked with any of the Wikidata templates enough to competently read it). I did verify that the current case does work correctly with the sandbox template: if you put  in the GDSCC article, it renders the location as "foo". If you leave out the location, it correctly renders "Mojave Desert, California, US". —[  Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 03:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

, I just found this issue in Barnard Observatory which lead me to this discussion, which seems to have gone dormant. Can you look into this and get the local value for location to override WD? MB 03:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I've spotted the issue, please try Infobox observatory/sandbox to see if that works as you would expect. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That does't seem to fix it. The current version of the aricle has University of Mississippi campus, Oxford, Mississippi. With the sandbox version, I still see "Oxford, Layafette County, Mississippi" (which I assume is from WD, but there is no pencil icon either). MB 15:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have updated the template from the sandbox, which appears to allow location to override Wikidata. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to have worked - I see the local override? Although I think it's better to improve it on Wikidata. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Start/end dates
Hello! The documentation says that "established" uses while "closed" uses. I think it would be better to use the following properties in order of fallback: I don't think start/end time should be preferred because they are not very specific and are used somewhat differently (such as for when something comes into effect). Tol &#124; talk &#124; contribs 21:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Established:, ,
 * Closed:, ,