@Nyttend and Acabashi: Re-opened I am concerned that this move may have far-ranging effects. In fact it appears to be a hard-coded maintenance category. See Tracking categories and Template:Location for more info. Unless we a confidnet that such a move won't break a whole bunch of templates and functions, I think this one is best left alone. Josh (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not hard-coded—the category’s name is the content of MediaWiki:kartographer-tracking-category, which can be changed at any time by a sysop. It should not cause any issues (if it does, that’s a software error, which should be fixed, but this scenario is really unlikely), except that updating 14.5 million pages causes significant load on servers, but it should be manageable (and has nothing to do with software-level tracking category status, moving e.g. Category:CC-BY-SA-4.0 would have similar impact). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tacsipacsi: Thanks for clarifying! You are right, 'hard-coded' is not the right terminology to use. It sounds like it is doable, but I wanted to raise a little visibility and give the chance for some more input on this CfD before we close and make such a far-reaching change. Josh (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tacsipacsi, would you mind voting, if you have an opinion on the proposal itself? It would help if we could have a second "move" or if you could balance out the first one by explaining why this is a bad idea. Nyttend (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: I don’t know. I don’t think this to be a such huge issue that’s worth the effort moving it, but I understand some do think so. So I don’t want to prevent the move, but I can’t support it, either. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: I would find a category for Kartographer maps alone very usefull, because it would at least give me a chance at finding examples. With media with just a set of coordinates piled on, it's practically impossible. --Hjart (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hjart: Practically all (99%+) pages in this category should contain Kartographer maps—but many of them are map links (which show the map itself upon click), not map frames (which are visible in small size even before user interaction). Splitting these two types to different categories cannot be done within Commons alone (it would require software changes), but links and frames can be queried otherwise separately. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hjart: You can use PetScan to exclude pages with certain templates. But this conversation is becoming really out of scope here, so in case of further questions, please ask somewhere else (e.g. on my talk page). —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Every time I see this category in the list I have that nagging sensation that I've committed a categorization error because the file has no cartographic connotation save being tagged using the Location template. A rename in this instance improves UX and ultimately its usefulness as metadata. @Nyttend and Joshbaumgartner: Is this rename still planned for execution in the near future? —⚞🐈ℛogueScholar🗨₨Talk⚟My recent mischief21:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My mind hasn't changed in the ten weeks since I created this nomination, but I really shouldn't close the discussion and move the category myself. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, suppression based on page metadata (namespace, root page name, page language etc.) is possible, but based on the page content itself (like other categories) is not. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, don't see a reason not to move it. Today was the first time I noticed this category, and it seemed odd to have it in an image without any maps. It took me a minute to realize that it was related to the coordinates on the page. —Ynhockey (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The category is filled generally by all pages using location templates. Category:Pages with coordinates would be a better name for such purpose. For the future, location template can use a different map application of more various maps. --ŠJů (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about that too. Personally, I use this category to check if categories or files are geocoded. (Took me some time to find out that it's called "Pages with maps".)
At least for Petscan, the benefit of this being a single category is rather limited, as it's not possible to query subcategories of categories it includes.
Another alternative might be "page metadata", but -- looking at PetScan -- it can't be used to query and the information isn't always present. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people can use categories a lot more easily than complicated search strings or use Special pages or Petscan, me included (let alone end users). So I plea for keeping this category.
I am stil PRO renaming this category to "Pages with coordinates". (But it involves a lot of files, subcategories and other pages, so I hope there is a tool to implement this change.)
how do you use this cat now, that doesnt involve the use of "complicated search strings or use Special pages or Petscan"? RZuo (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly: I cannot remember that I did. But I can imagine that it can be used for maintenance and searching for files that have not geographic coordinates, for example together with a search term like a location or your own uploads ("Search not in category" in the tab "More", and then change the search string to your wishes, which is easier than figuring out other methods of searching). JopkeB (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems it's possible to base categorization on namespace and the following would only categorize pages that are not files: {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|File||Pages with coordinates}}. Shall we go for that? Enhancing999 (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999: I really do appreciate your efforts. But could you please be somewhat more specific, so that a layperson like me can understand it too? Is this an elaboration of your previous proposal or is it a new one? If I say yes to your proposal, what exactly am I saying yes to? What does the tool(?) do, what do I get when I would use it (a list of search results, or does it change something in a page?), when should it be used (in what situations), what problem does it solve, can you give examples? JopkeB (talk) 04:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a way to implement the various proposals above: the name change (first mentioned 2020), the removal from files (based on the proposal by @RZuo, given the absence of a usecase for that usage).
This link works well for files with geographic coordinates. Is it also possible to have an equally simple search string for files without geographic coordinates? JopkeB (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should the search string exactly be? Because building -hastemplate:location does not do the thrick, you still get files with geo coordniates. JopkeB (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is not necessary and too much to have this on the "More" tab, it will not be used that often. Perhaps one Help page for geographic coordinates, including (or with links to) all the pages and links for this subject? On Commons:Editor's index to Commons I see about a dozen links to more information. JopkeB (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Category:Pages with coordinates has already been made. Are we going to implement some actions before this discussion has been closed? My conclusion uptil now was that we want to get rid of this category, whatever name it has, because it causes technical problems (I forgot where I read it) and there is now a good alternative (searching with hastemplate:"Module:Coordinates"). So please, be patient. JopkeB (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of it for files, yes. This is what the above does. MediaWiki will take several weeks to complete the change, so yes, patience is needed. We will have two active category description pages in the meantime. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page File:Wpdms 20020923b bowling green composite.jpg is in this category, though not directly (that is, the category name is not in the page source). Presumably there is some template that adds it. The problem is that the page doesn't actually have a map.
Matchups (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. How do I link to an image without causing the image to display here? I can see that piping doesn't work.
I want to find examples of manually added mapframes etc, but since this category currently includes tons of pages with nothing but object locations or wikidata boxes, it's useless for that purpose. Is there a chance only actual mapframes can be included in this category?--Hjart (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Category talk:Pages with maps. 
icon to the left of the location, or the 
button on the right. --bjh21 (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
