Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-5532276-20121230175132/@comment-24894325-20170528164907

While this debate is old, it feels like the opposing sides were coming closer to each other until they got distracted.

Let us attempt to reconcile the opposing views in hopes to achieve a real consensus.

First of all, I find compelling the argument that location is sometimes implicitly used by authors for context. Thus, if the template is used sparingly, it can be truly useful. A good example is Meadow Row, which is a street so small no Wikipedia article on it exists. The map remains the only way to easily point a reader to a real-world information, which we otherwise would have done with the   template.

Secondly, I see the sense in only putting the map template within the explicit "Behind the scenes" section (in most cases, it is already there) and changing its subsection name to "Location information" to avoid the use of the wording "real world", which was objectionable to Tangerineduel.

Would this solution be acceptable? A further step towards a possible reconciliation could be rewording the explanatory text from objective towards subjective, stating, for instance, that since authors sometimes implicitly rely on particular real-world locations, we provide such locations as potential reference.