Template talk:Cite map/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Edition field should not be a year

The "edition" field should not be a year, many map publishers use different schemes for the edition names e.g. 2nd Edition or Edition 3 or Centennial Edition. This template should have the same date fields as {{cite book}} i.e. date, year and month. If nobody objects I will make this change and update the articles using this template. -- Patleahy 06:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're suggesting exactly; I think you're wanting specific date fields for the edition? I don't know if that's really a good idea, simply because of the wide variation in map edition schemes. Indeed, some use edition numbers, like "2nd Edition". Many U.S. state departments of transportation publish maps biannually. (For example, the map I've cited most often was the ODOT 2005-2006 edition. No other dates are included on any of their maps. Kansas has a similar scheme, again with no specific publication dates given.) Rand McNally uses an annual edition number as well (e.g. The Road Atlas `07).
In lieu of having specific date fields, you can simply type the specific date in the edition year. Perhaps we just need to remove the hardcoded word "edition" from the template to make it more versatile. —Scott5114 18:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hm, reading over your changes to the template documentation page, it looks like you need a separate publication date parameter for when you want to include the year when it isn't included in the edition. I wouldn't be opposed to that, but I think that for maps that specify the year as the edition we should keep it that way in the template. —Scott5114 18:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Certainly the easiest thing to do in this situation is what you mentioned before: just use the edition field to specify yearly or numerical edition. The term "edition" works for either use. Update the documentation, not the template itself. -- Huntster T@C 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I will update the documentation to say the edition as you describe. I will also add optional year parameter for cases where the edition is not the year. I am also adding the following fields scale, series and id. Id free text and can be used in the same way as id in {{cite book}}. This is useful for ISSN and EAN numbers on maps. -- Patleahy 22:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Very nice job on implimentation, looks good. -- Huntster T@C 08:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The examples linked to in the Scale section below make a clear distinction between edition and year. I propose that the documentation should be updated to make it clear that where the year of publication is known it should go in the year section. If it is a range of years it can also be put in the year field. Edition should be used exclusively for the name of the edition.

Additionally I believe that the word "edition" be removed from the output to make this consistent with {{Cite book}} and {{Cite encyclopedia}}.

If there is consensus to do this I will personally update the existing uses of this template. -- Patleahy 19:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "edition", I somewhat disagree. It clarifies, what "3rd" or "2006/2007" means...excluding it could leave users in the dark, or worse, guessing. Also, remember that just because another article or template does one thing, doesn't mean they all have to. Use what works best with this template. -- Huntster T@C 21:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The writer of the article can put the word "edition" in the text herself. "Edition" is not always the correct word, many computer based maps and GIS refer to their edition as a "Version".
I agree that two different templates don't need to work the same way, however they should not differ without a compelling reason. Leaving out "edition" works for {{Cite book}}, I don't see why it would not work for this template. -- Patleahy 22:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Eh, excellent point. Please feel free to ignore me in the future. ;) -- Huntster T@C 04:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem. It's good to make people explain their thinking. -- Patleahy 04:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for creating this Template. I only just discovered that it had been done after posting a request back at the start of March. Nice work guys, I will be using it for quite a few articles. Nomadtales 23:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Do we really need to include the scale in here? It doesn't help in locating the work being cited, and would be included in the map itself. The only reason to use it I could see would be if there's a map collection with maps of the same area to different scale. —Scott5114 14:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, if you don't think the scale is needed you don’t have to use it.
You are correct, the scale does not help finding the map however the scale useful for assessing how relevant and authoritative the map is on the information being presented.
When I added the fields I looked for a definitive description the style to use. Neither the Wikipedia Manual of Style nor the The Chicago Manual of Style describe citing maps. The definitive work on the topic appears to be Clark, Suzanne M.; Larsgaard, Mary Lynette; Teague, Cynthia M. (1992). Cartographic citations : a style guide. MAGERT circular ; no. 1. Chicago: Map and Geography Round Table, American Library Association. ISBN 083897581X.  Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors= (help) I have not got a copy of this yet. I found a number of online examples which refer to that publication. McMaster University Libraries, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, United States and University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States. These all include the scale.
These look slightly different from what we have here and include a number of fields we don’t have. In particular they have "format" field. Examples of format are "map", " orthophotomap", "computer map". The all make a clear distinction between the use of date and edition.
I suggest we work to make this template match those examples. -- Patleahy 19:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
A map's scale is a key element of its description. And sometimes maps are categorized, even filed, as series of a given scale. So best practice is to always include the scale. J. Johnson (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


Shouldn't this template contain an author= field to enter the name of the cartographer if they are known? Dhaluza (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like that's what "cartography=" is for. RossPatterson (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Not really. Author should come first. It should also be consistent with the other {tl|cite}} templates. Dhaluza (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, adding an author field (with last/first fields probably) could probably be done. Usually, though, the only information available is who published the map, and the firm that they contracted the cartography out to, if any. (For example, the free maps that gas stations handed out in the 1960s would often have the gas station's branding prominently displayed all over the map, while H.M. Gousha or Rand McNally or some other company actually drew up the map.) —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are some (large) examples of maps with authors identified: [1] & [2]. The second one has a suggested cite format on page 3. Dhaluza (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This template still needs the author fields, the same as all other cite templates. I am using it to reference a geological map where the geologists are named. The cartography is by the USGS, so that is not a suitable place to put this info. Dhaluza (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll work on this later today. Huntster (t@c) 10:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
All right, I've fully renovated the template, moving some things around to better comply with standard citation formats while preserving some formats normally seen on wiki. I've implemented the "author" field and some other suggestions above. Any problems, let me know. Huntster (t@c) 08:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but a author for a map is the exception. I would say that the overwhelming majority of maps don't have an author, meaning that most times this template now outputs the year first. The publisher for a map is more akin to the author or editor of a book. The cartography attribute is more akin to the illustrator of a book. I submit that while the output is now consistent with other templates, this is applying consistency to an inconsistent world and should be reverted or modified. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned, I have no problem relocating Year; I did that simply because the majority of other citation templates format it in that fashion, and while I still believe this is the best method, I'll gladly change it if others here believe it incorrect. However, as to Publisher, I much more strongly believe this should not be placed at the beginning. I cannot find any other style guides which use this format...check any of the links on this page (the McMaster.ca link, from what I can tell based on what I've found, being the most respected), all seem to use pretty much the same format, placing Author first, which would default to Title first if author is unknown, something that existing wiki citation templates already do. I rather disagree with your assessment...why should publisher be considered as the author here, when a publisher is simply that: the one who publishes the material? It is no different from any other citation in that regard. Also, isn't one of the main reasons these templates exist so that some sort of consistency can be derived? Huntster (t@c) 01:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The Michigan Department of Transportation produces and publishes their free map. Under your line of thinking they should be listed twice as author and publisher? Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It would certainly not be the first time for such an event to happen. However, there is still a person or persons in the department that made the map, and the author field would apply to them, not the department itself. But yes, dual author and publisher coverage is not incorrect. Huntster (t@c) 03:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
But if the map doesn't list an author (and I will say that 99% of them don't) then you can't attribute it to an author. Consistency is still great, until you try to apply it to an inconsistent world. If there weren't a need for maps to be cited differently, we wouldn't have a separate template for this purpose. I submit that there isn't a consensus in this case and until there is, the template should be reverted for now. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand that logic at all. Why does it matter if you can't attribute it to an author? Lots of news citations don't have authors attributable, because the work does not provide them. This template exists because maps do need to be cited differently, because there are many fields (scale, section, cartographer, series and inset, for example) that should be represented. What do you mean by "inconsistent world"...how does that possibly apply here? I mean, why should we throw up our hands and say "Oh, the rest of the world isn't consistent, so we shouldn't be either." We aren't beholden to anything in our designs. Huntster (t@c) 03:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
As an addendum, I've used MDOT's maps as an example, but the Rand McNally atlases don't list a cartographer. Neither to the US Geological Survey maps nor Google Maps. In the last example, NAVTEQ supplies the cartography information, which is why there's the cartography= parameter. Dhaluza's second example notwithstanding, that's only a suggested citation format given. We are free in making our own MOS to create our own formats, and actually the MOS doesn't require the usage of a specific template series. The MOS only requires formatting consistency in the sense that all maps are cited the same way, all books are cited the same way, etc. There's been no objection at FAC to the previous template usage for maps, so if it wasn't broken, why did we fix it? Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If the parameter is optional, what's the problem? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that previous to this "fix" the publisher information was the lead info. Now it is the optional author parameter, which doesn't exist 99% of the time. So because of that, the lead information is the publication year in parenthesis most of the time, which makes the output less than useful. The publisher of the map is now relegated to the middle of the citation when the publisher is usually the paramount piece of information. Individual cartographers don't carry a reputation where the publisher carries a reputation, and in fact most maps published are collaborations of whole departments. (MDOT has a whole office that does the state map, not one person.) As such, I submit that the publisher of a map is the more important information for the beginning of a citation much as the author of a book. In fact the Library of Michigan archives its collection of maps of Michigan by publisher, not author! Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) The problem isn't with the new parameter. It's with the way the other parameters were reordered, and how the template appears when "author" is left out. -- Kéiryn (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a legit concern, to me; if an author is provided, it seems to me that it should go first, but the order when an author is not provided (the more common case by far) is also important and shouldn't get second billing. Sounds like you three are in the process of working this out, below, though. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything Imzadi has said above. I have no problem with the author field being added for the rare cases where it will be used, but in my eyes, reordering the parameters has broken the template. I'm pretty sure that every time I've used {{cite map}}, I've used a year and no author – which means every time I've used it, the year appears first, which is just wrong. Perhaps the solution is to create a second template – {{cite map with author}} – which would put the author first, and leave this one to put the publisher first. (Or perhaps some complicated coding could combine those two templates.) Regardless, the template needs to be fixed so that the year doesn't appear first in the vast majority of cases. -- Kéiryn (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Only one citation to a map have I ever had a specific person to cite. Christpher J. Bessert drew the map of Mackinac Island cited in the M-185 (Michigan highway) article. For that 1 time out of the hundreds of usages of this template, I used cartography=Bessert, Christopher J. but the map will still be found in libraries cataloged under the publisher, not his name. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I've already said that I'd happily move Year to the back if desired, and am in fact doing so now. I'm simply confused why Publisher is such a major concern...no other template places it in such promenance. Huntster (t@c) 03:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you just change it back to the way it was before? There is no consensus to be making these changes, which as Keiryn has said, have broken the template. In fact your changes have wreaked enough havoc that when I have an afternoon free, I quite literally will be replacing 16 references in the M-35 article to restore the output of the template before the template was changed and eliminating the template from the page completely. If someone were looking for these maps in a library, they won't find them cataloged under an author (that information just plain doesn't exist 99% of the time.) They will be filed by the publisher: the USGS, Rand McNally, the Michigan Department of Transportation, the Michigan State Highway Department, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, the Mackinac Island Convention and Visitor's Bureau, etc. That is why the original output of the template put the publisher information first. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Didn't moving the year back where it goes fix it though? -- Kéiryn (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I still don't understand what you are getting at, Imzadi, and I mean that with no disrespect intended. Okay, year is returned to normal, but the Author field is not required...if it isn't used, then it won't show up, same as virtually all other citation templates. Where is the problem? Huntster (t@c) 04:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
In plain English again, the publisher of a map is the datum used to catalog the map in a library. In the course of my research on the historical routings of highways in the state of Michigan, I've searched for maps with the Library of Michigan, Wayne State University, the Traverse City Area District Library, and so far they all catalog and file maps under the publisher of the map or atlas. It's all fine and dandy to add an extremely rarely used Author (should be Cartographer) parameter to the template, but that parameter is not going to be used in 99% of the cases where a map is cited. In fact the publisher holds the copyright on these maps, not the cartopher, unlike books whose copyrights are held by the authors not the publishing houses. As such, the publisher information for a map is more like the author information for a book and the citation should reflect that fact and put the publisher first. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I suppose publisher can be moved to the front (though that isn't very consistant, which is my personal preference). Author wasspecifically requested...where would you suggest it be located, and what should be done with the additional data that is currently prepended to Publisher (along with publisher location)? Huntster (t@c) 04:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to revert the template back to the previous state. Any cartographer that could be cited as the creator of a map best falls under the cartography= parameter. Yes, this parameter is more commonly used to state that Rand McNally or Gousha drew the maps printed and published by various oil companies, but it also works to state that Bessert drew the map published by the Mackinac Island Convention and Visitor's Bureau. A simple instruction in the documentation could have accomplished that without modifying the template code itself. Yes, I know that this means that in the extremely rare cases where the actual cartographer is known they don't get "top billing", but honestly it's a different situation here. In the general populace, authors of books carry a reputation for their writing, its content and accuracy. This same reputation in regards to maps is attached to the publisher of the maps, not the cartographer of a map who is so rarely known. Phone directories are similar in that I don't think I've even heard of a person lay claim to actually writing the directory. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My alternate suggestion is to leave the author= parameter in place as an optional leading parameter, but otherwise restore the template to the previous condition. Or we can use Keiryn's idea and have two templates with and without a parameter for the name(s) of the cartographers and direct editors between {{cite map}} and {{cite map2}} in the documentation Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) If you want to revert, please go ahead and do so, I won't challenge. I still confess that this makes no sense to me, but I care more about consistency and ease of reading than giving entities 'proper billing'. Huntster (t@c) 04:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is how you define consistency. IMHO, putting the publisher first is consistent with the other citation templates. The author of a map is not the same thing as the author of a book or a newspaper article or what have you. Nor do the publishers mean the same thing. When I think Harry Potter, I think J. K. Rowling; it's only in the back of my mind that I realize that it was published by Scholastic or Blooomsbury. But when I look at the atlases on my desk, I think Rand McNally or DeLorme. Barnesandnoble.com uses the same logic – when I go to by an atlas there, it lists the publisher as the author: "Arizona Atlas & Gazetteer by Delorme". So I think in that sense – that publisher here is equivalent to author in most other cases – it is being consistent to put publisher first. -- Kéiryn (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I reverted to the March 30th revision by Hersfold. Unfortunately I don't really understand ParserFunctions too well. Though I originally created this template, it's grown too much for me to understand, so I couldn't pick out the specific diff that rearranged the title and publisher. That means that the unrelated edits in between need to be remade. Sorry. —Scott5114 [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hide the access date

We have a consensus that access dates for online copies of offline sources, while helpful as a comment in the source, should be hidden from the reader. Could somebody who is competent to adapt the citation templates please do so? The idea is to keep the access date as a template parameter but remove the code that displays it. Thanks, --EnOreg (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, and it seems to me that for this template the accessdate parameter should remain. When the map being cited is from Google or Yahoo or some other online mapping site (fairly common), I think the date the map is retrieved is extremely important. However, when the map being cited is a print map scanned in and available online somewhere (fairly rare), then the accessdate parameter should be manually removed from those specific transclusions. -- Kéiryn (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

format parameter

This template should support a format parameter for denoting if an online map is a PDF or jpg or png, etc. Any takers on adding it? Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


Is this parameter implemented in the current version of the template? It's mentioned in the documentation, but didn't seem to appear when I used it for a reference on Ohio State Route 732. 23:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Code changes that were made to the template which also implemented booktitle were reverted to an earlier version, but the documentation was never reverted. This has been fixed. Basically, no, booktitle is not currently supported. Huntster (t@c) 01:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Can we get some code to re-add this function as well as a format= parameter? Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

year= vs. date=

If I use date= for the publication date/year nothing shows. If I use year=, I get something. Can we fix this? Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the fix needed to add the date back in [3]. Before I request this I'm going to ask the editor who removed it if he intended to remove it. -- Patleahy 18:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Please make this change to add back in the date= parameter which was accidentally removed. When this is done I will document the parameter.
i.e. replace this:
}} {{ #if: {{{year|}}}
 | ({{{year}}})
with this:
}} {{ #if: {{{date|}}}
 | ({{{date}}})
 | {{ #if: {{{year|}}}
   | ({{{year}}})
-- Thanks, Patleahy 16:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Done Stifle (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect order

Why does this template output the publisher before the title, when all other cite templates output the publisher after the article ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See above #Author section. I originally made that change, but it was felt by others that in this case, the publisher was considered the author, and thus should be in that place. Huntster (t@c) 22:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The confusion between author and publisher has permeated the Road Project and extended to this cite template. In every other template, author is a person. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not disagree, however, I'm not going through this mess again. If someone else cares to brave the storm, go right ahead. Huntster (t@c) 22:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I see; understood and unwatching. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
As an aside here, {{cite press release}} also lists publisher first and doesn't have a field for authors. Maps aren't much different from press releases where the publisher is the important detail and the person who authors the work, if even known, is actually less important. I'd much rather get other fields restored, like date and booktitle since the template is now broken in two FAs I wrote, and doesn't work properly in other articles where paper atlases are referenced. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Misc. text.

I have not yet found an authoritive reference on how maps should be cited, but I have noticed that typical practice - at least with geological maps - is to include some miscellaneous details like the number of sheets, pages of text (usually a separate document, but "map" implies the whole package), and scale. (And often there is a recommended citation which shows this.) I would like to have my citations conform to this practice (and recommendation) but haven't figured out how to get either 'citation' or 'cite map' to bend to my will. I wonder if another parameter (?) might help here. But perhaps it would be better to first work out a model of what the Wikipedia map citation form should look like. J. Johnson (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing requires the usage of citation templates. Any editor could hard "code" the citation between the <ref></ref> tags. In other words, the utility of the the templates is that they will do the formatting for someone, but if you have a recommended citation from the source, then just paste that into the article. The main reason the templates were created, I assume, is to provide consistency. If you use the same format that's hard-coded in the same ways each time in an article, that's going to satisfy that preference. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

page= parameter

Anyway to change the parameter to use the p./pp. formating like {{cite book}}? Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Page parameter changed to use "p." Unfortunately, this template does not support "pages=" at the moment. A conversion to {{citation core}}, if that's the right template, would likely fix this issue. – TMF 04:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


{{editprotected}} To allow elimination of the last deprecated accessdaymonth and accessmonthday parameters, please change the line }}</cite></includeonly><noinclude> to }}{{#if:{{{accessdaymonth|}}}{{{accessmonthday|}}}|[[Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters|{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]}}</cite></includeonly><noinclude>. Debresser (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Huntster (t @ c) 03:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Debresser (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Cite element

{{editprotected}} Please sync with the sandbox, to use a span instead of a cite element. (See Template talk:Citation/core for more information.) —Ms2ger (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. — RockMFR 15:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Sheet" field?

I am interested in referencing an old (1959) map of the capital of Sierra Leone that exists as a series of "sheets" (Sheet 1, Sheet 2, etc.) that are independent of any book or atlas (and therefore do not have "page" numbers). I wish to reference Sheet 2 specifically in my citation, but can't seem to identify a map template field that is the correct one for such information (other than "title", perhaps). Do so few maps exist as sheets that this field was not considered necessary? I read the above text and the topic does not appear to have been addressed. I will put my sheet reference into the "title" field for now, but this feels decidedly incorrect. I wanted to make the suggestion and ask others more familiar with map citation formats about the practicality of adding such a field. What are people's thoughts? KDS4444Talk 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent question; in Britain we have several such series, those published by the Ordnance Survey being the best known. These exist in several scales, each usually covers the whole of Great Britain, and each of which has one or more "series" (ie major edition), further broken down into sheets, which themselves go through several revisions (which might be called "minor editions"). Thus, 1:50000 Second Series, Sheet 174 Newbury & Wantage, Edition C1 1999. "Sheet 174" is not unique in itself, so we need the rest of it, although "Newbury & Wantage" is redundant provided that all the rest are present. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Redrose64: it sounds like you and I are using the same word, "sheets", within the same general context of the proper citation for a map yet actually meaning somewhat different things in the end (or are we??). For clarification, my own "Sheet 2" is a unique identifier of a particular sheet of my overall map (which contains six sheets, so it is 2 of 6, which would also be useful to know if looking up the citation) and there is no other "Sheet 2" within my same map title of "Freetown Road Map", 1959, published by so-and-so, etc. Is this also true of your British maps you mention? The map I am trying to cite was published in Sierra Leone, a former British colony and therefore a likely inheritor of a British mapping system including, perhaps, the use of numbered sheets. My own citation is decidedly incomplete with this element of information— I get the feeling that yours is the same.
According to what I've read above modifying a citation template is tricky work at best, and disastrous at worst. Wading into those waters is just the kind of thing I would be likely to try on my own and then drown in. Hopefully others will have either useful suggestions on how to include this citation element or will have the bravery to modify the template. KDS4444Talk 20:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe we are talking about the same thing. Ordnance Survey map sheets are sold separately, not bound together as an atlas; each sheet has its own ISBN. The Sheet 174 I mentioned is ISBN 0-319-22423-6; the one to the north (Sheet 164 Oxford) is ISBN 0-319-22322-1. The whole 1:50000 Second Series goes from sheet 1 to sheet 204, as did its predecessor the First Series; the obsolete 1:63360 Seventh Series ran from sheets 1 to 190; the Sixth Series was split in two: that for Scotland ran from 1 to 92, whilst that for England and Wales was very odd: 64, 71, 75 to 78, and 82 to 190, but duplicated numbers did not mean duplicated areas. Consider sheet number 64. I have mentioned five of these; yet these covered three different parts of the country: 1:63360 6th series Scotland sheet 64 was completely different from 6th series England & Wales sheet 64, but the latter covered the same area as 7th series sheet 64. Similarly, 1:50000 1st series sheet 64 covered the same area as 2nd series sheet 64, but that area is different from any of the 1:63360 sheet 64 maps.
You'll find it difficult to edit the template; it's protected. In the past, I have made only a few suggestions for amendment of a protected template - some went through, some were rejected or abandoned. Usually what happens is that discussion goes on as to the desired changes, and then a copy is made, which is then amended, tested, discussed (repeat until correct), at which point somebody puts {{editprotected}} onto the talk page, and an admin or similar actually carries out the amendment to the live version. There can be many complaints if the amendment breaks something - see Template talk:Citation/core#Error messages. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(Better late than never?) Interesting question. It seems to me there are two distinct usages, where "sheet" and "map" have some what intertwined usages. Originally a map – a depiction of some kind, the published object – was printed on a sheet – the tangible medium, generally a large piece of paper. And it didn't matter much whether one referred to a specific map, or specific sheet, those were just different aspects of the same thing.

But then came maps on multiple sheets, and sheets with multiple maps. And (especially in geology) maps with extensive notes, sometimes on the sheet, and sometimes in a separate pamphlet. So when I buy a "map" I might actually get "3 sheets and pamphlet", perhaps even additional plates. Making this even more complicated, sometime there are "reports" (such as the U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Reports, Bulletins, Miscellaneous Investigations, etc.) which sometimes are maps. Unfortunately, the cite_map template does not fully comprehend all of this.

Regarding the specific question raised above, I would suggest that, first and foremost, the title should be just the title. Sometimes that can get tricky, what with shortened or common forms of a title, or trying to include subtitles. But I strongly recommend against adding to or altering the title, which (hopefully) identifies this particular publication in a universe of publications, which may include very similarly named entities.

My suggestion would be to put the sheet reference outside of the citation. E.g.: <ref>{{cite ...}}, sheet 1.</ref>. However, I really dislike that particular form, as it further confuses "citation" and "reference", which are already horribly confused. Allow me to attempt a clarification. Accept that there are notes – commonly, by old tradition, called "footnotes" – which can be linked into the text by means of HTML <ref> and </ref> tags. Careful: even though "ref" is short for "reference", these are notes. Which can be any comment on the text, including a citation of – or "referencing to" – some source, which are often called (aaarrrgghhh!) references.

Now here is where it gets interesting. Many Wikipedians seem to prefer direct referencing, which is where the note contains the full bibliographic data for the source ("reference"); the bibliographic data is implicitly a citing of that "reference". This has an obvious problem if you re-cite a source, which leads to "named-refs", which I think gets ugly.

Alternately, I suggest indirect referencing, also known as Harvard referencing. This separates the bibliographic listing of sources (using the cite or citation templates, and aggregated with a reflist) from the citing of a source. Now at this point some folks would scream that the {{Harv}} templates are fragile — and I would agree. But they can be made to work (a separate topic). The beauty of this method is that you can have one complete (and proper) bibliographic listing of, say, "Sheet 174 Newbury & Wantage, Edition C1 1999 ...", that fully identifies the source in the whole universe of published maps, and within the article you can have notes that cite that source in a shortened form, along with explanatory comments. Something like: "{Newbury & Wantage, 1999}, sheet 1, showing ...". There is only one full bibliographic reference to the outside universe, and yet within the article there can be multiple citations, with different comments (perhaps somewhere else you want to refer to figure 1 of sheet 2), and even combination citations.

Hopefully that may be of some help. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I would like to add my voice to those who would like a "Sheet" field, particularly for the OSGB maps.
I would also like to point out that the normal usage for OSGB maps would be 'edition C3' not 'C3 edition. -- Robert EA Harvey (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


{{editprotected}} Could an admin please sync with the sandbox? I've added an optional anchor much like all the other cite templates that use Template:Citation/core. Thanks in advance, LittleMountain5 01:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! LittleMountain5 15:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved (on)

This template displays accessdate as "Retrieved on [date]", while wider-used templates such as {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} display simply "Retrieved [date]". Could this template be adjusted to be consistent with the others? -M.Nelson (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

An addition change that should be made is to move the output of the format closer to the title of the map. Imzadi 1979  04:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I removed the 'on' from 'Retrieved on [date]' in the sandbox; I also moved the format parameter to just after the title. That should make it consistent with all the other citation templates that use Template:Citation/core. Could an admin please sync the main template with the sandbox? Thanks, LittleMountain5 14:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Ucucha 15:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Umm... thanks, but it's not done yet. :/ LittleMountain5 21:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
They must have hidden the "Save" button. Or something. Anyway, it's done now. Ucucha 05:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone needs to fix how the "new" format location is handled. Right now, if format is used, it renders as "[map](<format, such as PDF, etc.>)" with no space in between. That sure isn't right. – TMF 22:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

cartography vs. cartographer

{{editprotected}} (See below, not the first piece of code) In many cases the cartographer is a single person responsible for the map. Can {{{cartographer}}} be enabled as well?


{{ #if: {{{cartography|}}}
  | Cartography by {{{cartography}}}.


{{ #if: {{{cartography|}}}
  | Cartography by {{{cartography}}}.
| {{#if: {{{cartographer|}}}
  | Cartography by {{{cartographer}}}.

-- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Why add another parameter name that doesn't do anything different in terms of output? This only added complication for minimal benefit. Imzadi 1979  18:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
It does seem a somewhat odd request. The same effect could be achieved more simply by
{{ #if: {{{cartography|{{{cartographer|}}}}}}
  | Cartography by {{{cartography|{{{cartographer}}}}}}.
But I have disabled the request for now until there is agreement that this is needed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is it that a debate is needed to decide whether or not it is worthwhile to add a new way of utilizing a parameter that already exists in the template? You add the code, nothing is affected, and all those articles that use the wrong one will suddenly show up correctly. Waste time debating something that causes no bad effects and enables nothing new, or just add it and move on unless is breaks something? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
See WP:HRT. This template is protected, and consensus must be achieved to make edits to the template. I disagree that it is needed. You're aware that changes have been made recently to {{infobox road}}, and I've made a lot of edits that only changed parameter names as part of the update. Why? There were several sets of parameter names that all worked for the same functionality, and going forward, the template is being streamlined to accept only one set of parameter names. The alternate names actually still work, for now, but they've been deprecated and will not work in the future. This process will simplify maintaining the template, and the articles that use it. If the article is using the wrong parameter name, fix the article, not the template. Imzadi 1979  19:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
It should also be remembered that aliasing parameters in this way increases the load time of the template. This increase is slight, but were it to be carried out several times, and the template transcluded several times onto a given article, the load time of that article could increase noticeably. The load times for several cite templates are already at the point where rationalisation is being requested. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Alright, understood. In this case, can we temporarily add something to create a category for articles currently using "cartographer" instead of "cartography" so I can at the least find what articles I've screwed up? I'll make an AWB run and we'll call it a day. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Can the following be added so I can fix mistakes?:
{{ #if: {{{cartographer|}}} | <includeonly>[[Category:Articles with improperly formatted cite map templates]]</includeonly>}}
-- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Please bear in mind this category may take several days to populate. Let me know when you're finished with it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Alright, all done. It was only Highway 401 (and one route in the US that I fixed up as well) that I'd messed up. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

year/date location

This template should be updated to move the date/year between publisher and title. As it stands now, it's displaying towards or at the end, but in parentheses, which is wrong compared to the other {{cite X}} series of templates. Imzadi 1979  22:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved from section below

While we're at it. the year in parentheses should appear between the publisher and title. Imzadi 1979  03:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the year/date. Can you confirm that this is what you wanted? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Yup, looks good. Imzadi 1979  12:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Cite map fails to meet documented style on terminal full stops

Cite map fails to meet documented style on terminal full stops.

  • Example: example 5 in documentation
  • Live example: Cites 7 and 13 of maps at Albany City Hall

thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Format parameter

{{edit protected}} Functional Classification of Public Roads - Yakima County Map No. 5 (PDF) (Map). WSDOT. 2003. Retrieved 26 October 2010. 

When you specify a format, there should be a space between [map] and the format, the above example does not have this. Can someone with a bit more template knowledge correct this? --Admrboltz (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


Support for this needs to be added. While many online mapping services are not archivable, posted copies of paper maps can be archived to prevent link rot. Imzadi 1979  16:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

Green tickY I added archiveurl and archivedate parameters to the sandbox. Please copy it to the main template. Thanks in advance, LittleMountain5 20:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Done. Imz, can you update the documentation? --Admrboltz (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but it'll be in a few hours. Cheers, LittleMountain5 20:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Documentation updated. Thanks everyone! Imzadi 1979  20:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I was wondering what Imz meant. :) Thanks! LittleMountain5 22:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

ISBN and page number

The output for the ISBN of a map should be at the end, after section/inset information. This would match the location compared to the page numbers in {{cite book}}. At the same time, support for a pages parameter should be added for maps that span two pages in an atlas. (The output would be pp. <pages> compared to the current p. <page>.) These are two issues that may pop up when I take U.S. Route 131 to FAC in the near future. Imzadi 1979  06:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Provision for pages= parameter and displaying pp.

{{editprotected}} Template doesn't show pages when the "pages" parameter is used, and is incapable of displaying "pp." This should fix that.


{{ #if: {{{page|}}}
  | {{ #if: {{{section|}}}
    | {{ #if: {{{inset|}}}
      | p. {{{page}}}, section {{{section}}}, {{{inset}}} inset.
      | p. {{{page}}}, section {{{section}}}.


{{ #if: {{{page|}}}{{{pages|}}}
  | {{ #if: {{{section|}}}
    | {{ #if: {{{inset|}}}
      | {{#if:{{{pages|}}}|pp|p}}. {{{page}}}, section {{{section}}}, {{{inset}}} inset.
      | {{#if:{{{pages|}}}|pp|p}}. {{{page}}}, section {{{section}}}.
    | {{ #if: {{{inset|}}}
      | {{#if:{{{pages|}}}|pp|p}}. {{{page}}}, {{{inset}}} inset.
      | {{#if:{{{pages|}}}|pp|p}}. {{{page}}}.

Yes check.svg Done -- Please update the documentation. --AdmrBoltz 20:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Adjusted accordingly. Thank you good sir. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


  • Looks like I made a mistake. Entering "pages" makes {{{page}}} show up in the citation because the code isn't set to display the {{{pages}}} parameter instead.
  • Change:
{{ #if: {{{page|}}}{{{pages|}}}
  | {{ #if: {{{section|}}}
    | {{ #if: {{{inset|}}}
      | {{#if:{{{pages|}}}|pp|p}}. {{{page}}}, section {{{section}}}, {{{inset}}} inset.
      | {{#if:{{{pages|}}}|pp|p}}. {{{page}}}, section {{{section}}}.
    | {{ #if: {{{inset|}}}
      | {{#if:{{{pages|}}}|pp|p}}. {{{page}}}, {{{inset}}} inset.
      | {{#if:{{{pages|}}}|pp|p}}. {{{page}}}.
  • To:
{{ #if: {{{page|}}}{{{pages|}}}
  | {{ #if: {{{section|}}}
    | {{ #if: {{{inset|}}}
      | {{#if:{{{pages|}}}|pp. {{{pages}}}|p. {{{page}}}}}, section {{{section}}}, {{{inset}}} inset.
      | {{#if:{{{pages|}}}|pp. {{{pages}}}|p. {{{page}}}}}, section {{{section}}}.
    | {{ #if: {{{inset|}}}
      | {{#if:{{{pages|}}}|pp. {{{pages}}}|p. {{{page}}}}}, {{{inset}}} inset.
      | {{#if:{{{pages|}}}|pp. {{{pages}}}|p. {{{page}}}}}.

That should actually fix it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --AdmrBoltz 22:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

ISBN location change

{{edit protected}} Please copy the code from {{cite map/sandbox}}. This will move the ISBN output after the inset/section/page number information, making the output consistent with {{cite book}} et. al. See Template:Cite map/testcases for the effect of the change on example 8. Imzadi 1979  14:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A new parameter

For atlases, we should have a |atlas= or similar parameter. If used, |title= should be rendered in roman text in quotation marks and the output of the new parameter would be in italics. That way titled maps in atlases could be cited properly. As an example:

Current output:
{{cite map |publisher=Rand McNally |title=The Road Atlas |pages= 50–1 |section=J5–M8 |edition=2008 |isbn=0-528-93981-5}}

The Road Atlas (Map) (2008 ed.). Rand McNally. pp. 50–1. § J5–M8. ISBN 0-528-93981-5. 

Proposed output:
{{cite map |publisher=Rand McNally |title=Michigan |atlas=The Road Atlas |pages= 50–1 |section=J5–M8 |edition=2008 |isbn=0-528-93981-5}}

Rand McNally. "Michigan". [map] The Road Atlas, 2008 edition. pp. 50–1, section J5–M8. ISBN 0-528-93981-5.

The alternate would be a parameter that would hold the map's name like |chapter= holds the chapter name in {{cite book}}. Either method will also need a corresponding URL parameter for the new parameter for online works. Imzadi 1979  20:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

In the cases of atlases I tend to cop out and use {{cite book}}, and instead of using the |page= parameter, I use |at=map 26, inset B or |at=p. 12, section C4 as appropriate. See, for example, ref. 1 in North Filton Platform railway station, or ref. 2 in Woodcroft Halt railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I've done similar, but then you lose the [map] identifier. I've used The Road Atlas: Michigan, turning a map name into a subtitle when I've used my Rand McNally as a source, but strictly speaking, that's not correct either. It should be easy enough to add the two parameters to the template, and if I were in a coding frame of mind, I might even draw up something, but I would like to know which approach editors would like better first. Imzadi 1979  21:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Imzadi1979, 5 June 2011

Substitute over the code from {{cite map/sandbox}} to the template. This will add two new parameters to the template, |language= and |trans_title=. This will allow us to cite maps from other languages better by indicating the language of origin and a translated version of the title. This is partially per a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citation_templates#Need_better_template_for_citing_topographic_maps. The additions have been tested at Template:Cite map/testcases (see examples 9 and 10).

Imzadi 1979  18:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, with some trailing whitespace removed while I was at it. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Merci beaucoup', as they would say in Paris. Imzadi 1979  15:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ref link fix

{{editprotected}} This edit should not have altered the way that the id= attribute was generated. Please sync from sandbox. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Will this break the ability to have "pp." for page ranges? If so, then the proposed solution to the id issue needs to be changed to accommodate the p./pp. issue as well. Imzadi 1979  20:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
No, not at all. The p./pp. will still be in the citation: it is the construction of the anchor link, as used by short notes, that is broken and will be fixed by my change. If you examine {{citation/core}}, you'll see that the anchor links generated by a {{cite book}}, etc. do not contain page information. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Done. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Muhandes, 28 August 2011

Request sync with sandbox, which implemented a consistency request made at at Wikipedia talk:Citation templates#A consistency issue. The change is [map] to (Map), so it is consistent with {{cite report}}. Muhandes (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't do it yet. There are number of minor issues that need to be tweaked first. Editions, series scales, etc are appearing with commas, but Muhandes' changes didn't take that into account. Please see the testcases page for testing results. Imzadi 1979  19:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the period you added before the parenthesis does not look well. Furthermore, it will prevent this from being consistent with the press release template (see discussion there). I don't see what the problem you are mentioning with the commas. Editions, series scales, etc are appearing with commas after the (Map), followed with a period. What's the problem with that? --Muhandes (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please reactivate the request when you are in agreement and the new code is fully tested. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Update to citation/core

Sandbox2 version now uses {{citation/core}}; this makes Cite map compliant with the other templates in Citation Style 1 (cite web, book, journal, etc.).


{{Cite map |publisher=Skelly Oil Company |title=Highway Map of Oklahoma |cartography=Diversified Map Co |year=1966 |section=11C}}
Highway Map of Oklahoma (Map). Cartography by Diversified Map Co. Skelly Oil Company. 1966. § 11C. 
{{Cite map/sandbox2 |publisher=Skelly Oil Company |title=Highway Map of Oklahoma |cartography=Diversified Map Co |year=1966 |section=11C}}
Highway Map of Oklahoma (Map). Cartography by Diversified Map Co. Skelly Oil Company. 1966. Section 11C.. 

{{Cite map |publisher=Rand McNally |title=Discovery Atlas of the United States |year=1993 |page=7 |section=7G}}
Discovery Atlas of the United States (Map). Rand McNally. 1993. p. 7. § 7G. 
{{Cite map/sandbox2 |publisher=Rand McNally |title=Discovery Atlas of the United States |year=1993 |page=7 |section=7G}}
Discovery Atlas of the United States (Map). Rand McNally. 1993. p. 7, section 7G.. 

{{Cite map |publisher=Stanley Maps |title=Mt. Rainier National Park |scale=1 : 30,000 |year=2000 |edition=Centennial |cartography=Charles B. Kitterman / Kulshan Cartographic Services |isbn=0-9662209-4-3}}
Mt. Rainier National Park (Map) (Centennial ed.). 1 : 30,000. Cartography by Charles B. Kitterman / Kulshan Cartographic Services. Stanley Maps. 2000. ISBN 0-9662209-4-3. 
{{Cite map/sandbox2 |publisher=Stanley Maps |title=Mt. Rainier National Park |scale=1 : 30,000 |year=2000 |edition=Centennial |cartography=Charles B. Kitterman / Kulshan Cartographic Services |isbn=0-9662209-4-3}}
Mt. Rainier National Park (Map). 1 : 30,000, Cartography by Charles B. Kitterman / Kulshan Cartographic Services (Centennial ed.). Stanley Maps. 2000. ISBN 0-9662209-4-3. 

{{Cite map |publisher=Kansas Department of Transportation |title=Official State Transportation Map |url=http://www.ksdot.org/burtransplan/maps/state-pdf/kansas0708.pdf |edition=2005-2006 |section=F9 |accessdate=March 30, 2007}}
Official State Transportation Map (PDF) (Map) (2005-2006 ed.). Kansas Department of Transportation. § F9. Retrieved March 30, 2007. 
{{Cite map/sandbox2 |publisher=Kansas Department of Transportation |title=Official State Transportation Map |url=http://www.ksdot.org/burtransplan/maps/state-pdf/kansas0708.pdf |edition=2005-2006 |section=F9 |accessdate=March 30, 2007}}
Official State Transportation Map (Map) (2005-2006 ed.). Kansas Department of Transportation. Section F9.. http://www.ksdot.org/burtransplan/maps/state-pdf/kansas0708.pdf. Retrieved March 30, 2007. 

{{Cite map |publisher=[[New Zealand Department of Conservation]] |title=Kepker Track |series=Parkmap |scale=1 : 50,000 |edition=3rd |year=2003 |cartography=GeoSmart (NZ) Ltd}}
Kepker Track (Map) (3rd ed.). 1 : 60,000. Parkmap. Cartography by GeoSmart (NZ) Ltd. New Zealand Department of Conservation. 2003. 
{{Cite map/sandbox2 |publisher=[[New Zealand Department of Conservation]] |title=Kepker Track |series=Parkmap |scale=1 : 50,000 |edition=3rd |year=2003 |cartography=GeoSmart (NZ) Ltd}}
Kepker Track (Map). 1 : 60,000, Parkmap Cartography by GeoSmart (NZ) Ltd (3rd ed.). New Zealand Department of Conservation. 2003. 

{{Cite map |publisher=[[Ordnance Survey Ireland]] |title=Kerry |series=Discovery Series |scale=1 : 60,000 |edition=2nd |year=2000 |isbn=1-901496-59-7}}
Kerry (Map) (2nd ed.). 1 : 50,000. Discovery Series. Ordnance Survey Ireland. 2000. ISBN 1-901496-59-7. 
{{Cite map/sandbox2 |publisher=[[Ordnance Survey Ireland]] |title=Kerry |series=Discovery Series |scale=1 : 60,000 |edition=2nd |year=2000 |isbn=1-901496-59-7}}
Kerry (Map). 1 : 50,000, Discovery Series (2nd ed.). Ordnance Survey Ireland. 2000. ISBN 1-901496-59-7. 

{{Cite map |publisher=[[United States Geological Survey]] |title=Mount Adams East Quadrangle - Washington - Yakima Co. |year=1998 |scale=1 : 24,000 |series=7,5 Minute Series (Topographic) |isbn=0-607-92088-2}}
Mount Adams East Quadrangle - Washington - Yakima Co. (Map). 1 : 24,000. 7,5 Minute Series (Topographic). United States Geological Survey. 1998. ISBN 0-607-92088-2. 
{{Cite map/sandbox2 |publisher=[[United States Geological Survey]] |title=Mount Adams East Quadrangle - Washington - Yakima Co. |year=1998 |scale=1 : 24,000 |series=7,5 Minute Series (Topographic) |isbn=0-607-92088-2}}
Mount Adams East Quadrangle - Washington - Yakima Co. (Map). 1 : 24,000, 7,5 Minute Series (Topographic). United States Geological Survey. 1998. ISBN 0-607-92088-2. 

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and sync that sandbox over then. I made a change though; traditionally maps are cited to their publishers, because they don't have an "author". Once that was switched, it's good to go. Imzadi 1979  19:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection. --Muhandes (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
There is now a double period after the section/inset. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the no author issue. Wouldn't the Piri Reis map have an author, but no publisher? As I had it, author was not required; the change results in publisher being pushed into the author field resulting in a problem in the COinS output. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The cartographer is essentially the editor of a map, and would be the closest thing to an author. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Modern maps are typically works of corporate authorship, meaning the publisher and the "author"/cartographer are the same entity. If you want us to duplicate the publisher in the "author" field, go right ahead. I see that's how the map library at the University of Wisconsin-Madison's cartography program does things. [4] Imzadi 1979  18:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that most modern maps will not have an author, so we would simply leave it blank. Notable vintage maps and certain modern special maps may have an author, and that feature was available with my version. The UWM style you note does allow for an author. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
To summarize the changes I made:
  • The order has changed slightly to match WP:Citation Style 1
  • Map is in parenthesis instead of brackets
  • Edition is now in parenthesis
  • Other parameters are supported including |ref=
All current parameters are supported, so the update would be transparent. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
If the double period issue has been solved, you had my support a while ago. Imzadi 1979  02:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Documentation updated. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well done! --Muhandes (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)