User:Zackmann08/rfc

RFC: What should we do about pages with too many maps in the Infobox

Background

I rencently came across multiple settlement pages that have 3 or more maps in their infobox. To me, this seems wildly unnecessary, particularly when many of the maps duplicate each other (see examples linked to below).

To get more information about this, I created Category:Pages using infobox settlement with potentially too many maps (15,711). This addition, seen here, looks at |mapframe=, |image_map=, |image_map1= & |pushpin_map=. If 3 or all 4 of them have values, the settlement page ends up in the category.

Some simple examples (I am permalinking these in case things change during the RFC)

Vancouver - A total of 5 maps are present. An image_map, a mapframe (hidden but still present which essentially duplicates the information of the image_map) and 3 separate pushpin maps.
Addison, Illinois - Once again a total of 5 maps. The image_map and mapframe are essentially duplicates (except that the mapframe is obviously interactive) and then 3 separate pushpin maps. (Do we really need location in United States AND location in North America?)
Beaver, Utah - This one is pretty obviously wrong. Do we really need an image_map showing the location of the state of Utah in the United States? Definitely seems superfluous to the other maps.
Chung-guyok - Once again the image_map and the mapframe are basically duplicates.

The questions

Is this indeed superfluous and in need of fixing?
If it IS in need of fixing, what guidelines can we implement to resolve these cases where there are 3 or 4 maps.
With the rise of Mapframes, should we deprecate the use of pushpin maps?
Can we agree that the mapframe should NOT be hidden in the infobox as is often done.

Discussion

Does this need to start as a full-blown RFC? Has there been a previous discussion that resulted in multiple solidified options? If not, the RFC will probably go off the rails as ill-defined. Also, four questions, with some depending on other questions, is too complex to get a clear RFC outcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it's easy enough to get answers to a lot of these questions about how to reduce the insanity in some of those examples. A question that would really require an RFC would be a more fundamental one - like are we fine with editors replacing pushpin maps with mapframes on sight. I think we're close to that point, except for the switcher feature which is sadly problematic, cf. Template talk:Infobox mapframe/Archive 1. The amount of code that had to be added to Minneapolis to get it to work is frankly way too much for a default use case. --Joy (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

To make this more explicit - if you could first debug why module:infobox mapframe's switcher=auto implementation chokes up when module:mapframe's doesn't, that would be great. --Joy (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)