Template talk:Cite Google Maps

Request to remove author parameter

Could someone please remove |author= Google |author-link = {{#ifeq: {{{link}}}|no| | Google }} 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 |website = Google Maps |publisher = Google 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)

@Imzadi1979: 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)

@SCHolar44: 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, @Imzadi1979:. 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 My intention was to invite the attention of someone with authority to make a change to (a) the out-of-date URL format (http → https) in the example given, and (b) the change in Google Maps URLs generally (http://maps.google.com ...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)

@SCHolar44: 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 http to https, 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 Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. 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
    • {{cite map |author = [[Ohio Department of Transportation]] Office of Technical Services, GIS/Mapping Section |year = 2011 |title = Official Transportation Map |sections = B2–F2 |scale = 1:570,240 |location = Columbus |publisher = Ohio Department of Transportation }}; I would argue that the given |author= should be |publisher=.
    • {{cite map |author = Rand McNally |year = 2013 |title = The Road Atlas: United States, Canada & Mexico |location = Chicago |publisher = Rand McNally |edition = 2013 Walmart |sections = NE2–NE6 |scale = 1:760,320 |page = 78 |isbn = 0-528-00626-6 }}}}; 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 {{cite news ... |newspaper=The New York Times}}, not {{cite news ... |newspaper=The New York Times |publisher=The New York Times Company}}. 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) – MaterialWorks 23:16, 21 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

– 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)

• 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)

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.

Template-protected edit request on 26 June 2024

"Google" is present in two parameters in the template (both author= and publisher=), which seems redundant. I suggest that one of these are removed. (I am not referring to the links for Google Maps or Google Street View in the website= parameter.) –Dream out loud (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Maps are traditionally cited to their authors, which may or may not be the same as their publisher. Removing it from this template would make it inconsistent with other map citations in many other articles. Imzadi 1979 → 21:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The above statement is of questionable accuracy, based on a semi-random sample of articles. I support removing the redundant corporate authorship from this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I also support removing all the redundant stuff from this template. Polygnotus (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

In summary we got:

1. User @1980fast: see here.
2. User @Jo-Jo Eumerus: see here.
3. User @GoingBatty: see here.
4. User @Anomalocaris: see here.
5. User @Jonesey95: (above)
6. User @Dream out loud: (above)
7. User Trappist the monk see here.
8. User Polygnotus

versus:

1. User @Imzadi1979:

There appears to be a WP:OWN problem. Consensus should decide what and what not to include in this template, not any single editor.

Currently, if you write:

{{Google maps|url=https://www.google.com/maps/place/Labadie,+Haiti/@19.78524,-72.24648,1266m/ |title=Labadie |accessdate=13 October 2016}}

you get this:

"Labadie" (Map). Google Maps. Retrieved 13 October 2016.

Instead of what you should get:

"Labadie". Google Maps. Retrieved 13 October 2016.

Who wants to do the honors of removing all this redundant stuff?

Polygnotus (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done I have remove the redundant author parameter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, removing |author= is a step in the right direction. Polygnotus (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to say that I support this edit. I wonder if we should remove |publisher= as redundant to |website= (the work) and per Help:Citation Style 1 § Work and publisher at Publisher.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes please. Polygnotus (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I also support removal of |publisher=Google. Izno (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I have added some code to restore the author on articles that consistently cite map authors. Removing the author means that dozens of FAs and many, many dozens of GAs are inconsistently formatted. At least with a now-optional |author=yes parameter, those articles can remain consistently formatted. Imzadi 1979 → 14:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: As the template currently stands, all parameters are passed through to either {{cite web}} or {{cite map}}. You could set |author=Google in an article and restore the old behavior. Whether that is a proper use of WP:IAR (given the consensus here), I leave others to comment on. — hike395 (talk) 15:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Were I you, I would hold off and not charge ahead to implement your change to the template without there is consensus that accepts your change. And please use the sandbox; stop fiddling with the live template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 15:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC) Comment stricken

I see that you have moved to the sandbox. Comment stricken.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Consensus above is very clear. @Imzadi1979:: Propose changes in the sandbox, demonstrate them on the testcases page, and bring them here for consensus. Or just use |author= with a normal value in articles as needed for citation consistency. It might also be helpful for you to link to affected articles that demonstrate your concerns. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we came to an agreement, see their talk. Polygnotus (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing consensus. I see a discussion that stalled out 2 months ago and should have been closed. I see discussions from years ago that also stalled out being used as proof of consensus now. I don't see any broadcast of this discussion to wider audiences. I do see discussions that are basically mirrored above here that include borderline personal attacks against Imzadi1979. I do see changes being ramrodded through. But again, I don't see consensus. –Fredddie™ 21:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

There are links to six discussions over the course of five years in which eight editors, over a period of years, said that listing "Google" as the author of a map is redundant and should be removed. One editor said that it should not be removed, primarily offering consistency as a reason. In at least one discussion, an editor went to the trouble of showing that corporate authors were not a consistent feature of map citations. I do not see any personal attacks. I do not see any ramrodding. The |author= parameter remains available for use in individual transclusions if intra-article consistency is needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Potential improvements

If you write:

{{Google maps|url=https://www.google.com/maps/place/Labadie,+Haiti/@19.78524,-72.24648,1266m/ |title=Labadie |accessdate=13 October 2016}}

you get this:

"Labadie" (Map). Google Maps. Retrieved 13 October 2016.

I think there are some imperfections:

1. (Map) is possibly unnecessary (readers understand what Google Maps is). It is caused not by this template but {{Cite map}}.
2. It seems to show the accessdate as if that is the date the map was created, which is incorrect and misleading.
3. The word "Google." appears to be an unnecessary duplicate since we already know it is Google Maps.

@Jonesey95: What do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I concurred with the removal of |publisher= above. Yeah, |access-date= as |date= seems wrong and if not wrong then redundant. The (Map) annotation can be suppressed by setting |type=none in this template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

No opinion on the publisher. I would leave in the word "Map" for clarity when this source is used with other maps as well as with other types of sources. As for the date, it appears that |date= is set to be the same as |access-date= if no date is provided. That seems to be redundant at best, and misleading at worst, since Google Maps does not generally list publication dates of their information, as far as I know. It seems untrue and unlikely that a piece of data retrieved from Google Maps was published on the same day that it was accessed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I would endorse removing |date=access-date, even with the commentary below. Izno (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Jonesey95 made a good point: I would leave in the word "Map" for clarity when this source is used with other maps as well as with other types of sources.. I have struck that suggestion. If someone really feels strongly about it then they are welcome to start another discussion. Polygnotus (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

|date= is set to be the same as |access-date= if no date is provided. That is incorrect and misleading. If no date is provided then no date should be shown. Polygnotus (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion is already noted above. I'd like to let this discussion breathe for a day or three. In the "author" discussion, there were many previous requests, so consensus was more clear. I'd like to hear from other page watchers if there is a technical or verification-related reason for this date fallback. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Ok, have you seen "academic citation guides say to use the date the map was generated, which is the same as the access-date, as the date published"? I don't think that that is true, but if it was it would be a very weak argument. Polygnotus (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to see a citation for that argument. When I find a particular label on a Google map, that label could have been placed there at any time in the past. I have no way of knowing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record: the reason I repeated myself is because the edit request template told me to provide detailed instructions and I wasn't sure who would answer the edit request

I have looked at a few style guides and citation guidelines that universities have posted on the internet and I cannot find any that say we should use the accessdate as the date of publication. At least one says Date posted if known. which is a reasonable suggestion. Google Maps often mixes data from several providers and dates (you can see the copyright notifications in the bottom right). For example, when looking at Düsseldorf I can see that parts of the map are from 2024 and others are from 2009. Polygnotus (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Remove the publisher per myself elsewhere on this page. Remove the date that is generated from access-date, as it is actually incorrect, per Polygnotus. Continue to allow specification of the date parameter, which is important in Street View mode. I don't know if the date parameter should be ignored (not displayed) when not in Street View mode; my inclination would be to suppress date display except in Street View mode. But this is probably beyond the scope of the current discussion. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I think everyone has had their say, I don't really want to ping them all again, and more than 3 days have passed. What do you think? Polygnotus (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the mandatory value for |publisher= and the assignment of |access-date= to the |date= parameter, per the above discussion. The publisher and access-date can still be added manually to individual citations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)