Similar to the recent Template:Infobox road conversion, I am proposing allowing maps from Wikidata to be used in this template. Does this sound good? --Rschen7754 21:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

@Happy5214: I can try coding this one myself but I may need your help --Rschen7754 21:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This worked beautifully for infobox road, and I see no reason why we can't expand on that. TCN7JM 21:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support OK by me. –Fredddie™ 21:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support Hopefully it ends up well like the infobox. Marcnut1996 (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support -- Nbound (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - For obvious reasons. Mitch32^{(It is very likely this guy doesn't have a girlfriend.)} 01:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Which are, specifically? –Fredddie™ 02:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - No reason has been given why this is required or desirable, and this sounds like bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, which of course, we ain't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Please read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikidata_Phase_2 for context. Note that like {{Infobox road}}, this will not actually remove the map parameter. –Fredddie™ 13:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I started to read that but my brain started melting, I began to gnaw both my legs off in boredom, and had a sudden bout of nostalgia for Wikipedia c. 2003 when things were simple, editing syntax was obvious, modifying templates didn't require the skill of a programmer, and everyone had a vague idea of what we were all doing. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to get a cup of coffee and see if I might actually get an article to FAC sometime this year before I go stark raving mad. I cannot believe how much time people spend squabbling over some box the casual reader browses at briefly before going on to read stuff that is unsourced, poorly sourced, or questionable. Then ask yourself why people laugh at Wikipedia for being poor quality and unsuitable for research purposes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Ok the long and the short of it is this: the RfC requires consensus to implement any Wikidata calls in specific infoboxes. So to enable this template to call the map information out of WD, we need to propose, discuss and then implement the change. As a courtesy, projects that use the template were notified. If you have such a big problem with "bureaucracy", then why did you bother commenting here? Imzadi 1979 → 15:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
        • So you admit you enjoy pointless bickering and will happily flip the bird at anyone who has the complete and utter audacity to disagree with you and suggest your priorities are slightly skewed. Oh, fair enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Do you see him saying anywhere that he likes or enjoys this? Look at the options here. It was either we did this without consensus, which is against the rules and would have only caused you to complain about it, or we did it with consensus, which is what we're trying to gain now. Either way, you clearly don't like it, and you've already said you don't like it, so commenting further only makes you seem like you're trying to start a fight. TCN7JM 22:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry you feel like that, but my original question has gone unanswered, vis What benefit does this give us? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
              • Information sharing between Wikipedias. We get their maps, they get ours. --Rschen7754 08:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support, there's no valid reason not to. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support as long as it does not screw up the template.  VC  23:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus for adding this to the template. The dynamic maps proposal does not have consensus yet, and even if it did, we are still a long ways off from deploying it. Thus, I will code a module shortly. --Rschen7754 08:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, a working but messy implementation is live now. I'll come back in a few hours and simplify the code. I'm thinking of converting some of the other fields to use Wikidata as well, as this will be much simpler than the Infobox road conversion. --Rschen7754 11:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Eh, went ahead and fixed the code here and on simple so everything should be stable now. --Rschen7754 11:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikidata#Edit in Wikidata links. Thanks. Evad37 [talk] 01:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Fredddie, was there discussion that established consensus for such a change? Not necessarily saying it's a bad thing, but I think it would have been better to have the setting on an opt-in basis rather than having articles appearances passively changed without any notification. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

There was not a discussion. I was being BOLD when I added the automatic mapframe maps. I figured since most articles had the coordinates listed already, adding the mapframe would be no problem. This is the first concern I've heard from it. –Fredddie™ 05:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem with passive template appearance changes like this is that they change articles' appearances without showing up on watchlists. The Sam Yan article, for example, already had a manually inserted mapframe map, and the change caused two duplicate maps to be displayed for a few months without any editor noticing. The change is already done, and editors probably have been adjusting to it, so there's no point in reverting it now, but I think there should probably have been some sort of heads-up announcement. (Not sure if there's currently a system suitable for handling such announcements, though. This maybe an issue better suited for a more centralised venue.) --Paul_012 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)