![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
I've just added my first georef (as far as I remember). Hope there's nothing obviously wrong in that. (Wikimedia shows no syntax error.) It produces a link to this page at Geohack. The upper half of this is a list of "Global services" and another of "Japan". Looking at the latter:
I scored seven out of nine. Should I be grateful (are glitches common), or does something need attention?
And a trivia (I think!) point: I provided the coordinates for a point that eyeballing suggests isn't far off the centre of the island. Is this good enough, or should I have instead chosen (i) the point halfway between the NSEW extremities, or (ii) the centre of the island imagined as a smoothly rotating mass of uniform material and thickness, or (iii) something else? (If the second, how would I determine it?) -- Hoary ( talk) 06:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
&x=ppp&y=qqq
you should give it (say) &lat=ppp&lon=qqq
. But what the new parameter syntax for that specific website has become, I couldn't say.Some coordinates on Wikipedia are listed in decimal degrees, some in degrees/minutes/seconds. There doesn't seem to be any pattern. I'm not surprised, as it's something of a personal preference. (If anything, my only surprise is not to have encountered a pointless flamewar over which format is "better".) Nevertheless, I think it'd be good to touch on this issue in the guidelines, if only to say, "there is no standard, use whichever you prefer, and if you want to see them all the same way across Wikipedia, use the display preferences in common.css, please don't start editing them all."
Similarly, I suspect there's no standard for the geodetic point we identify for cities (whether of the centroid, the central business district, city hall, that nice fountain in the middle of the park in the middle of downtown, etc.), but again, it'd be nice to touch on the issue, because the question comes up.
Finally, is there a preference to avoid redundant coordinates in articles? For example, some cities contain coordinates in the settlement infobox, and also an invocation of the Coord template, and sometimes the coordinates are different. I would have thought this was to be avoided (that is, that articles on entities with coordinates in the infobox should never contain explicit Coord invocations), but I noticed that the article we cite as an example, Los Angeles, does it this way, and with some extra markup for a "Geographic locale" boxlet which might or might not be important to someone to preserve. — Steve Summit ( talk) 16:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
For larger objects like cities, the current guidance is to to reduce precision to something appropriate to the size of the object, and then pick something vaguely "near the middle". Rather than precisely specifying an official center or canonical point in the city. There's a bit on that at WP:OPCOORD. There's been on and off discussion of supporting some way of specifying actual areas for non-point locations, possibly through Wikidata, and/or possibly by pulling in the outline from OpenStreetMap, in cases where they have one. -- Delirium ( talk) 02:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
A few days ago the boxed category links under "Fix", such as "Talk pages requiring geodata verification" for user-reported coord problems, stopped showing the "There are no pages in this category" message (or whatever it was; I can't recall exactly) under each link when the categories were empty; and I've just discovered that they don't now show links to the pages needing attention when there are items in a category. (Yes, I'm aware that one used to have to do a null edit to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/to do to update the page. I used to check for problems regularly by doing that, but now one has to click on each link separately to see whether there are any pages in the categories.) I don't know enough about how such things work to identify what exactly was changed; can anyone here figure it out? Deor ( talk) 20:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I have implemented a temporary fix until categorytree is working again. -- Bamyers99 ( talk) 02:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I know that there are many articles that I have worked on that will not show coordinates on Google Earth, even if the information on it has been there for a year. Do we know why this might be? Thanks! Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 22:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
To my surprise, it seems that GNIS queries now require a login. Fortunately, existing GNIS links are not broken, Has anyone tried to get an account? — hike395 ( talk) 13:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I added coordinates to Pinnacles National Forest, so it's no longer categorized as missing coordinates; but now is under category:Coordinates not on Wikidata. I'm not clear on whether anything further ought to be done. The terse instructions at Wikidata:Coordinates tracking ("import it") are pretty unclear to me. TJRC ( talk) 21:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I tried to find guidelines about whether and how GPS coordinates should be used in articles about events. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Geographical_coordinates does not have anything to say about this. This project's page offers some more information:
My concern is two fold:
I've just noticed that rather few of our articles on the world's countries actually have coordinates for the countries. Is this deliberate? (Part of the reason may be that the {{ Infobox country}} template has lat and long parameters that seem to have been usurped for the coordinates of the capital city, so they can't be used for the whole country. I've also raised this question on the template talk page.) — Steve Summit ( talk) 02:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, I've tabulated the numbers of US articles needing coordinates at Category talk:United States articles missing geocoordinate data by ripping off the UK equivalent - previously there was no easy way to eg see that there were 3,309 articles needing geotagging in California, as it was spread over 59 subcategories. Hopefully that might inspire some people to have a go at reducing the backlog - at least the US doesn't have the medieval lost buildings/events that the UK does, which take a lot of research to locate! Each state has typically only a couple of hundred, so it makes for a nice finite little sub-project; CA Wikpedians can tackle it a county at a time. I've also knocked a load of UK/Wales/US coord missings down into their respective subcats. Le Deluge ( talk) 13:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if there's any point in storing coordinates for something other than articles? What can be the use cases for searching outside of mainspace? Currently, there are some pages mostly in userspace with a lot of coordinate templates and I was thinking of not storing their coordinates in database. Here is the list of 100 pages with most coordinates. Thoughts? Max Semenik ( talk) 20:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys,
I have been breaking my head trying to get the coordinates right for the location map we are using for
Sevastopol: {{
Location map Sevastopol}}
Can someone lend a hand? I can't figure it out correctly and when we invoke it on infoboxes the pushpins are placed incorrectly on the map.
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 17:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
Location map Sevastopol}}
. It will take someone more adept with templates than I to fix that (though I will note that the longitude range in the template appears to be too wide).
Deor (
talk)
19:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Hi, please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Convert#Template:Circle_of_latitude — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.208.33 ( talk) 11:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Template:Lunar coords and quad cat ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for merger. -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 06:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I've been having some snafus with Chinese coordinates, particularly for the city of Nanjing seeing differences between where the coordinate lands in Google earth vs. Google map mode.
For Qingliangshan Park, the article has the {{coord|32|03|07|N|118|45|24|E|region:CN-32_type:mountain_source:kolossus-dewiki|display=title}} coordinate... but it does not show up in the right place in Google or Baidu maps. It does, though, in Map Quest.
Do you know how I can verify if this is the right coordinate? And, if it doesn't display correctly, it is wise to use the coor template?
Thanks!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 00:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
For some time, I've been tracking the progress of geocoding on enwiki, and I just thought that I should let you all know that we are making excellent progress.
As of today, roughly 85% of all potentially geocodeable articles now have coordinates, and most new geocodeable articles are typically geocoded either on creation, or within a month of creation. The backlog is now at the lowest level ever since I started monitoring it in late 2010, measured as a ratio of the size of the backlog to the number of articles on Wikipedia, and is also very nearly at its lowest ever in absolute terms. (See User:The Anome/Number of articles needing coordinates for details.)
Kudos to all involved. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
A call has been made for other languages to write on Welsh themes. A great start today with many new articles. Any help in running this would be appreciated - grab the reins and to the wind! Llywelyn2000 ( talk) 22:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it, all Toolserver tools are scheduled to be deleted at the end of this month. I, for one, find tools such as coord-enwiki.log and glupt.log invaluable for identifiying formatting and other errors in the geotagging of WP articles, though Dispenser has apparently no interest in migrating the tools to Wikimedia Labs. I fear the inevitable degradation of geocoding on WP articles in the absense of such tools; is there really nothing that can be done to forestall this? Deor ( talk) 16:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Template:Lunar coords and quad cat ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for merger. -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 05:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious, where does the layer that marks a river (e.g in the WikiMiniAtlas at Yarmouk River) comes from? What in the page links to it? trespassers william ( talk) 13:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk)
17:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have to report that the very useful 'nearby' feature, which used the coordinates added by our hard work to display the tagged articles nearest to the user's location, has been removed from the official Wikipedia app for Android, in today's upgrade. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I have studied the tables at WP:OPCOORD on this page, and I would like to inquire as to the value of rows 3 and 5 of the left-hand table. They provide precisions for one-tenth of a minute and one-hundredth of a minute, respectively. Is it possible to show fractional minutes in coordinates (e.g. 34°27.3'N)? If it's possible, would anyone actually do that rather than use the seconds value (34°27'18"N)? If not, what would one do with that information? To me it seems to only get in the way of one's understanding of the table and the concepts represented therein. Any comments? Cheers, Mandruss ( talk) 12:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
After struggling with coordinates precision for awhile, I created some tables that I think would be useful to other editors. Do you see a place for these in existing help files? If so, where? Mandruss ( talk) 11:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This may seem a trivial point, but maybe not to some. The first three cells of the first row of the dms table would more correctly contain d° m' s.sss". I used d° m' s.ss" there because (1) I've never seen anyone use seconds to three decimal positions, (2) the table at
WP:OPCOORD only goes to two decimal positions, and (3) the difference isn't all that significant at that level. I'm willing to change that if anyone wants me to.
Mandruss (
talk)
14:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the above change because (1) I decided it's not appropriate for the table to suggest an arbitrary upper limit on precision, and (2) I wanted something to do. I'm willing to change it back if anyone wants me to.
Mandruss (
talk)
08:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I have added the tables to the project page following the existing info at WP:OPCOORD. Although they might be of interest to some people using Template:Coord, they're not about how to code that template. That doc links once to WP:OPCOORD in its Quick guide section, saying "Avoid excessive precision." Hopefully, people who use the new tables and think they're useful will link to WP:OPCOORD in related edit summaries. There might be a case to be made for a new shortcut, if enough people start using the tables. Mandruss ( talk) 13:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I asked this question in Teahouse and was directed here. This article is catted as needing coordinates. It is about an outbreak of wildfires across two states. It refers to locations using city and county names which are all linked. Looking for advice as to how to approach.
Thanks! Mandruss ( talk) 22:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Are these really necessary? All they have is a list of cities that pass through them, so they don't seem to have much useful information. (except, of course, the Prime Meridian and Equator, Tropic of Cancer, etc.) See Template:Geographical coordinates for the whole list of lat/long articles.
Maybe all the minor articles could be merged into a "Lines of Latitude" and "Lines of Longitude" article, with a table with famous cities that pass through each line. Llightex ( talk) 21:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
We need a new template (like template:Coord/Wikidata) which give its parameter from Wikidata, d:Property:P625. Thank you.-- Çalak ( talk) 11:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
|region=
, nor |type=
. These still need to be set locally, according to
this discussion.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
12:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
This new and, I hope, exciting graph shows the apparent recent improvement in progress as of September/October 2014, after a recent period of having settled down to just keeping pace with Wikipedia's growth (although that itself is a significant achievement, given the vastness of Wikipedia and its rapid growth rate). The new trend seems to be have kept steady for two months, so I suspect this is a real trend, not just data fluctuation.
If (entirely hypothetically) this rate of straight-line improvement were to be kept up indefinitely, we would hit 100% somewhere in 2021-2022. Whether the apparent improvement in the rate of progress can be sustained (I would expect something more like a logistic curve in practice), and whether it was caused by the start of transwiki copying from Wikidata, is an interesting question -- The Anome ( talk) 14:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
There are currently over 13,000 articles outstanding in Category:Iran articles missing geocoordinate data. It would be a big win if we could geocode these. Does anyone have access to either better machine-readable coordinates than are stored in GNIS, or (perhaps) a better approach to string-matching Arabic place-names than mere string comparison?
In addition, since I don't speak Farsi and thus can't do it myself, is anyone here an editor on fawiki, or a Farsi speaker willing to work with me on somehow cross-connecting geocoding efforts between the two projects? A look at the Google translation of fa:ویکیپدیا:ویکیپروژه_مختصاتدهی seems to show that there is a local community already there working on the problem. -- The Anome ( talk) 14:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@ The Anome:
Some or all of these may have occurred to you; but in case not:
-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
The Bool, Tagbilaran article currently has coordinates 9°37′58.80″N 123°52′48.00″E which I hear may be overly precise per WP:OPCOORD. A suggested change is 9°37′N 123°52′E, but that is then on another island.
(I am used to using a coordinate template, generated from geolocator, which doesn't work on the settlement Infobox. And, have never come upon this issue of over-precision before.)
Do you think that the 9°37′58.80″N 123°52′48.00″E could be used? If not, how do we get to coordinates that are not overly precise, but are at least in the correct general area of Tagbilaran? Thanks!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 09:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The conversation after my 09:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC) posting is pretty much over my head. I used 9°37′50″N 123°52′50″E. Is that good, or should something else be used? Thanks!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 22:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see this page from Google; we're about to be losing KML support for Google Maps classic, and apparently KML files can't be hosted on the ugly new version of Google Maps either. Cross-posting to the technical village pump. Nyttend ( talk) 04:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
As many of you know, The Anomebot2 has recently been importing coordinates from Wikidata into en.wikipedia articles. The rationale for this is clear—adding coordinates to articles that previously lacked them is certainly a positive contribution. There are, however, certain aspects of this activity that give me pause:
The obvious response to this is that adding the coordinates is a Good Thing and that any problems can be corrected by Wikipedia editors in the normal course of work. On the other hand, the number of editors who deal with coordinates is not great, and it's extremely difficult for human editors to keep up with the pace at which a bot can import them. (I spent roughly 20 hours emending the Bulgarian-village coordinates and moving them into the articles' infoboxes so that location maps would display for the places.) Do any of the readers of this page have thoughts on the matter? Deor ( talk) 11:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a bug in Wikdiata, relating to coordinates; I'd wait for that to be resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
|coordinates = {{coord|55.752222|N|37.615556|E|format=dec|name=Moscow}}but what we actually have is
|latitude= |longitude=
-- Superzoulou ( talk) 14:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we favor displaying geographic coordinates in decimal notation—versus DMS (degrees, minutes, seconds)? — EncMstr ( talk) 18:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Here are my comments duplicated from above (which seem lost in other comments):
— EncMstr ( talk) 18:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
{{
coord}}
and/or its module to ignore the format= parameter and assume it was specified as format=dec.{{
coord}}
. (keep_original=yes?) Support for this should eventually be dropped once DMS vs. decimal is not contentious.{{coord}}
template and most infoboxes, it's easy to change the formatting to display d/m/s even if the underlying coordinates are decimal; and I don't see why such displays should be discouraged, since they are after all the traditional format for expressing coordinates, and I'm a traditional guy. (I also like specifying d/m/s display for coordinates entered in decimal format that require five or more decimal places of precision, because of the rounding.) In short, I see no reason why we should try to suggest or enforce a specific format; most folks, I'm sure, just click through the coordinates to look at a map, and the format doesn't matter to them at all. A greater problem, it seems to me, is the prevalence of too-precise coordinates in articles, in both formats.
Deor (
talk)
19:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)There is an element of pointlessness to this discussion, in a way. Let users enter the coordinates however they like, and the templates then change it to decimal if required. I'm opposed if users will be forced to convert coordinates, and in favor if templates will do it for them. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 23:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
{{
coord}}
parameters. —
EncMstr (
talk)
23:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)I just asked the Village Pump Technical to provide input as to whether this is doable. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 23:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
{{
coord}}
already supports |format=dec
. As I understand it, we're only talking about changing the default, from "the format used to specify them" to decimal format. Of course that's doable. ‑‑
Mandruss
☎
00:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)EncMstr, should the proposition be clarified before more discussion? ‑‑ Mandruss ☎ 23:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
|format=dms
or |format=dec
is used; these force that output format regardless of the input format - which may still be either one. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
00:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC){{
coord}}
regardless of parameters is about twice as far as I had imagined—at least initially. Changing it so that format=dms is ignored is about as far as I was thinking; instead display DMS only if the coordinates are given in DMS. If there is community buy in on that much, and no one can give a compelling reason to regard DMS on an equal footing to decimal, then perhaps in a year or two, ignoring the original format and always displaying decimal would be in order. —
EncMstr (
talk)
02:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)|format=dms
is not coded. ‑‑
Mandruss
☎
04:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)I would suggest dropping the item about assuming 40 degrees, as it doesn't gain anything. The code would still have to calculate the precision based on 40 degrees (object size would still be a variable). The tooltip change would be a nice touch, but we should bear in mind that the reader will be one click away from the DMS equivalent anyway, since GeoHack gives both formats up at the top of the page. I would Support it even as currently written, as I think it would be a substantial improvement, but I'll wait a bit before I bother to refactor my !vote. ‑‑ Mandruss ☎ 08:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Pigsonthewing, Chris857, Imzadi1979, and Justlettersandnumbers: I saw Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Archive 28#Links to Google Maps and it looks like you are the best ones I found to ask the question. I've got a user insisting on using Google and only Google maps as a reference.
An example article is Allevard. This Google maps is referencing these three statements:
I'm not comfortable with this because:
Bgwhite ( talk) 07:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It appears that links to
https://maps.google.com/ - such as the one titled "Map all microformatted coordinates" in {{
GeoGroup}}
- will stop working soon. I've started a thread at
Template talk:GeoGroup#Viewing KML data in Google Maps. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
19:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
In the four articles I've added coordinates to (so far) today— Embassy of Uruguay, Washington, D.C.; Nkamba; Apeejay School, Mahavir Marg; and Ferdinand I National College—the title-position coordinates are displaying fine for me in the first two, whereas in the second two they are displaying in an increased size. Is anyone else seeing this? Can anyone figure out what might be the cause? Deor ( talk) 15:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
After about 9 months, is it finally time to delete the links to Dispenser's tools ("coord-enwiki.log", "Coordinate check tallies", "Red link prefix search", and "Coordinates around 0°,0°") in the "Fix" section of the project's to-do list (transcluded at the top of this page)? It doesn't look as though they will ever be migrated to, or recreated at, Tool Labs. A damn shame, in my opinion, since they were quite useful in identifying coordinate problems, but I seem to have been a lone voice crying in the wilderness when I brought the matter up at the time. Deor ( talk) 11:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Is there any way to add or update coordinates in an article remotely? Via some webservice or other API ? ♆ CUSH ♆ 21:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Dthomsen8 has been doing some excellent work on geolocating articles on airports/airfields that are currently missing coordinates. I've generated a list at User:The Anome/Airports missing coordinates to help them in this process: if any other editors want to help geocode more articles on that list, I'd greatly appreciate it. -- The Anome ( talk) 13:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines for public services like Annapolis Valley Regional Library and Halifax Regional Fire and Emergency? Should the coordinates be for the headquarters or the approximate center of the area they serve? Derek Andrews ( talk) 12:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Would it be good to have {{ convert}} support coordinate angle-unit conversions between decimal degrees and degrees-minutes-seconds? template talk:convert has a discussion going on -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 04:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
It is not clear to me how elevation should be included in the coord markup. The SNO detector is more than a mile underground, so elevation is required for an accurate position. Could someone please tell me how to include elevation in the markup? Thanks. Boardhead ( talk) 13:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Recently, the GeoHack page that readers are sent to when they click on coordinates in articles has been changed. It now displays a big "Wikimedia maps beta" map (similar, but not identical, to an Open Street Map) at top left and a data table at top right. One wonders why the relevant, linked region code (when one is used in the article) does not appear in the latter, as it did on the old GeoHack pages. Is including a region parameter in {{coord}}
no longer useful? (Also, in some cases, where there used to be a displayed WikiMiniAtlas map, all I'm getting now is a big gray box with "JavaScript disabled" at the top. This looks pretty clunky, especially since the WikiMiniAtlas map seems to have been made redundant by the "Wikimedia maps beta" map.)
Deor (
talk)
16:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The tables whose format is being debated above have a far worse problem. The first line says that objects of 1m size should be given to 0.001 second precision. This translates to a location with 3 cm (1 inch). In fact, very few points on the entire Earth are known to that accuracy, which means that almost all the coordinates given in Wikipedia to that number of digits are lies! If we really knew locations that accurately we would have to adjust them every year for continental drift. A location stated to that precision pretends that we know where something is about 100 times as accurately as a modern expensive GPS receiver can provide. The table actively encourages people to mindlessly copy meaningless extra digits from Google Maps, even though the typical accuracy of Google Maps is 5–10 meters [2]. As a scientifically trained person I find this embarrassing. I propose that only places whose location has been professionally measured to higher accuracy (the top layer of surveying points in a recently-surveyed country, for example) should have more than one digit after the decimal point for seconds. Even that one digit will be uncertain in most cases. Zero talk 03:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
See false precision for an article on this topic. Zero talk 03:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
(This section does not appear left-adjusted. Can anyone see why? If you can fix it, please feel free to delete this question.) Zero talk 03:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
This translates to a location with 3 cm (1 inch). In fact, very few points on the entire Earth are known to that accuracy.
This translates to a location with 3 cm (1 inch).- No, the 3 cm you refer to is the resolution of that precision, not the object size. The object size is 1 m. In any case, you seem to be saying that the tables are bad because they can be misused, with which I disagree. All guidance on anything can be misused. People need to use appropriate object sizes if they wish to use the tables.
The formatting problem disappears if I comment out the tables above with the red heading "DRAFT values for discussion...". I'm not too good at tables but I suspect some syntax error there. If someone can see the problem, we'll appreciate it. Zero talk 05:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
In general, what should be the focus of coords for small linear subjects? I'm trying to reduce the size of Category:Ohio articles missing geocoordinate data, but many of the articles are topics such as streams and bicycle trails: they're too minimal and too poorly defined to warrant something like the KML files used for highways, they're too short to warrant multiple coords (most of them don't have any significant locations except source and mouth), and I'm not sure whether the mouth of a stream or some other spot should be used. Nyttend ( talk) 16:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm a bit nonplussed at an article such as Northampton Castle which has a coordinate in the infobox, below the fold, but lacks a coord in the top right. I'm used to & prefer coords at the top right of the page (i.e. display=title) & hate having to hunt for them. (I have no objection to their being in the infobox as well, even if this amounts to duplication.) I tend to think that users are better served by a consistent position in the article for singular coords. Would anyone like to weigh in on the subject of whether we should care & if so whether we might do something about this? -- Tagishsimon (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
|coordinates_display=both
to say whether the coordinates should be in the title, and that page just doesn't have it set (I guess that is so articles can have multiple boxes). --
Scott Davis
Talk
06:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)|coordinates_display=both
, |coordinates_type=landmark
, and |coordinates_region=GB-NTH
. ―
Mandruss
☎
06:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)I have the New York City missing cooordinates list down to 99 articles, but I have some questions:
Note: A request to change the map indicator type is ongoing at Module_talk:Location_map. Please comment there if interested. — xaosflux Talk 14:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, project members. In case you are interested in contributing, WikiProject Oregon's current collaboration is adding coordinates to the 200 articles in Category:Oregon articles missing geocoordinate data. See here for the talk page discussion. (You'll also see a related pushpin map discussion in the section above.) If you are able to pitch in, any help would be appreciated! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 00:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been brought up before, I've had a rummage through the archive and didn't see anything. My mind has been wandering as it does, and it occurred to me, that through the magic of
Automatic Identification System it is possible to access the position of ships in near-realtime via a web API.
This is one example but
this map only requires a ship's
IMO number (and although it's not visible on the map, one can extract the coordinates from the source if you search for "latitude", it's in the script at the end). So in theory one could grab that location and present it on a ship's article. I appreciate that there's plenty of work may be needed to make this happen - not least having a conversation with one of providers of AIS data. There's quite a few, ranging from comprehensive ones that track from space, to cooperatives of people who own land-based detectors who exchange data between themselves but don't have such good coverage. The space ones are better, but they charge for API access, at least, so we'd need to do a bit of fluttering of eyelashes to get one of those on board. You could get away with hitting the API say once an hour and then caching it on Wikidata - the average merchant ship is only going to move 10-20 miles in that time, if people want a more recent update they could go to the partner site (which means there's something in it for the partner site assuming they have adverts or sell more subscriptions). All passenger ships, and all cargo ships over 300t, have to squawk AIS when travelling internationally (and in many domestic jurisdictions); military ships aren't obliged to squawk but generally do in peacetime, certainly in busy shipping lanes. I'd imagine there's similar APIs to access the position of spacecraft and the like.
It's not just of theoretical interest, there are some practical uses. For instance, the available sources suggest that the first
Tide-class tanker was meant to be leaving a Korean shipyard by the end of 2015 for delivery to the UK, but the above map shows that it is still undergoing sea trials in Korea, so one puts less weight on what the sources say about planned delivery dates. Any thoughts?
Le Deluge (
talk)
23:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Any thoughts?- This strikes me as a feature with nonzero benefit but greater cost. I also question whether real-time ship tracking, essentially a maritime flightradar24.com, is within the mission of an encyclopedia. I don't know who would implement this, but it seems likely that there would always be something more pressing on their plates. If you wish to pursue this, I think WP:VPI would be a more suitable venue, as well as giving it more exposure. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I see that Flickr have a large database of outline polygons for geographical entities, generated from their own internal data and released under a CC-BY license. (See http://code.flickr.net/2011/01/08/flickr-shapefiles-public-dataset-2-0/ for details.) I'm planning to use this to set both the scale and region parameters for all Wikipedia articles which use {{ coord}} to generate their coordinates, and have both names and existing coordinates that match the Flickr dataset.
This will touch several tens of thousands of articles at the very least, and should represent a substantial improvement in the quality of our data, but will make no difference to the actual appearance of any article, so there will be zero disruption. Where existing scale or country data is present, I will not override it, but instead log it for later analysis. Once this is done, I can also look at the possibility of doing the same to articles with coordinates generated by infobox parameters.
I'm also considering the possibility of importing WOEIDs from this dataset into the Wikidata items for these articles. See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Place#WOEID for more details. -- The Anome ( talk) 08:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I asked this at the Village Pump but received no answers. Apologies if it's been asked before. It looks like Google has not updated the 'Wikipedia' layer in the Google Earth database in some time -- many of the placemarks are appearing at slightly (or significantly) different locations, that I know I and other editors have corrected.
Does anyone know who at Google is responsible for importing our dumps into their database layer, so that we can prod them into maybe doing a fresh update sometime?
(To cite one example, I corrected the coordinates in our article on the Buildings at 15-17 Lee Street a year and a half ago, but Google Earth is still displaying it at the old, less-accurate location. And I've found other examples that are even older.) — Steve Summit ( talk) 13:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I see differences between de:Vorlage:Positionskarte Ukraine Oblast Kiew and Template:Location map Ukraine Kiev Oblast by using same coordinates. Can anybody explain these differences ? I want to use a map in de:Woodpecker (Kurzwellensignal) like in Duga radar. -- Fmrauch ( Talk) 22:17, 26. Apr. 2016 (CEST)
Now I see: there was a mistake Diff. The problem in the German version is that I can't use a position outside the boarder of the map without getting an error message. So I used lat=51.56 instead. -- Fmrauch ( talk) 20:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
just thought I'd drop you folks a line wasn't sure if you've had a look at Template:Gbmapping - there are some obvious overlaps with template:coord EdwardLane ( talk) 22:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
{{coord}}
in articles about UK places.) There's no real overlap.
Deor (
talk)
23:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Wikipedia:WikiProject_whatever
, and here it looks like a link this project was in the
Louisiana to-do's. It was implemented this way because categories and the names of the templates vary greatly. I had not considered the to-do's, though. That could have links to all sorts of WikiProjects! I will work on a fix, but hey, glad we got a kick out this hilarious bug. I have
blacklisted this WikiProject from being notified for the time being. Cheers —
MusikAnimal
talk
04:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Hi! It's been a few years since your project was featured in the Signpost. Would anyone be interested in talking about new additions/technology, etc? I'd love to interview a few of you. Please ping me! Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 20:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
How can I add two (or more) geotags to a single article? I'm sure I've seen it before somewhere...-- الدبوني ( talk) 12:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Please join a discussion of geographic coordinate formats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Attached KML#Proposal: Use Wikidata and new module.
Evad37 [
talk
12:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
For Spock's sake, don't encourage "globe:earth". It's the default, and will remain so even after humans have colonized Europa (or gone extinct). - A876 ( talk) 04:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Droll and I are having a disagreement about how to round metric values for elevations and prominences in articles that use {{ Infobox mountain}}. Specifically, the disagreement focuses on articles that take these values from Peakbagger.
My position is based on MOS:UNCERTAINTY and MOS:CONVERSIONS. What I want to do is check the precision of each of the elevation and prominence values from the sources, and use the {{ convert}} template to keep the same amount of precision in the metric as in the imperial. (This implies that we cannot use automated editing to put precision into infoboxes). For example, for Twin Sisters Mountain, the summit elevation is only known through 40' contour lines, so I want to present the elevation rounded to the nearest 10 meters: 7,000+ feet (2,130+ m)
Droll's position is based on verifiability. Peakbagger is a reliable source, so we should present the metric elevation that they present. Peakbagger presents metric elevations rounded to the nearest meter, so it's ok to use automated editing to set the precision. For Twin Sisters Mountain, the elevation should be 7,000+ feet (2,134+ m), the same as the elevation listed on the Peakbagger page.
What do other editors think? — hike395 ( talk) 14:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see related RfC (permalink), now closed. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Unless there are objections, I'm going to add this bullet under "Which coordinates to use":
This seems mostly uncontroversial, but I'm bringing it up here because I've come across a number of reservoirs (example: Lake Elwell) which list the coordinates of the dam that impounds them. I don't know if this has been done as a matter of expediency by someone who already knew the dam coordinates, or because someone thought it was preferable.
While we're at it, is it worth adding any explicit guidance about features with a crescent or otherwise irregular outline? Consider Ross Island (Oregon). For such a feature, I'm always torn between using a coordinate that's at the approximate geometrical center (but in the case of Ross Island, in the water in the lagoon in the middle), versus offsetting the point significantly such that it's actually on the feature. (I guess one reason not to provide explicit guidance is that it's pretty hard to even describe the situation concisely!)
Any thoughts? — Steve Summit ( talk) 15:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I am reverting this. My eyes can discern very little to no difference between the two characters, and the information is for visual reference only. Why switch to a character that no one has on their keyboard? Finally, the edit removed the spaces between the d, m, and s elements, which greatly aid readability. Not an improvement. ― Mandruss ☎ 08:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
coord}}
, considering how the tables are used. You use them to choose a precision, which you then use in coding {{
coord}}
's positional parameters or infobox parameters such as |lat_d=
, etc. The one thing you won't code is anything in the format of the output from {{
coord}}
.Use precision |
For objects no larger than | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
0° | 30° | 45° | 60° | |
d° m′ s.sss″ | ||||
d° m′ s.ss″ | ||||
d° m′ s.s″ | ||||
d° m′ s″ | ||||
d° m′ | ||||
d° |
|
|
The values could be computed with {{#expr}} if desired.- I hope and assume you mean doing that as a one-time, throw-away thing, rather than putting that in the table entries and doing the computations every time the page is downloaded.
An open question is how the advice should be phrased for objects exactly the size of the breakpoint.- There aren't likely to be many cases like that, as the break points won't be the round numbers that editors will use to estimate object sizes. But if I'm thinking correctly the "no larger than" advice would give the higher of the two precisions in that case, which is ok and probably better.
I hope and assume you mean doing that as a one-time, throw-away thing, rather than putting that in the table entries and doing the computations every time the page is downloaded.Actually, I meant the opposite. Remember that mediawiki caches formatted pages, so it does not convert wikimarkup to HTML each time. Also, the cost of doing the computation is actually quite minimal, less than a normal template invocation. (Since the latter requires a database lookup which #expr does not.)
Still oppose...I don't really care; it's just the software developer in me that prefers to embed things in executable code rather than comments that can go stale. Like I prefer to use {{ convert}} where possible, even for measurements that aren't going to change. But the implementation techniques are a minor point not worth derailing the main discussion: what should the output look like.
|
|
Do those numbers look right, or does the formula need adjusting? 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 19:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
it's just the software developer in me that prefers to embed things in executable codeYeah, the software developer in me feels strongly about the KISS principle and gives it a high priority. As you said, shouldn't be a big point of contention. You're doing that part of the work, so you get to choose.
Why don't rows 3 and 4 of the dms table differ by a factor of 10?Because row 4 is followed by a scale jump of 60×, while row 3 is followed by one of 10x. So we stay with seconds a bit longer (to objects of size larger than 1.72 km) to avoid having too little precision when we jump to minutes.
"give precisions approximately one tenth the size of the object", and it's not clear if, when the choice is between 1/2 the size of the object and 1/120, which is preferred. The obvious thing to me to do is to set a goal of 1/10, but allow it to be missed by a factor of √60 = 7.746 on either side. That is, allow a precision as coarse as 0.7746 the size of the object before changing to a 60× finer resolution
For objects no larger than | Use precision | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
0° | 30° | 45° | 60° | |
0.98 m | 0.85 m | 0.69 m | 0.49 m | d° m′ s.sss″ |
9.8 m | 8.5 m | 6.9 m | 4.9 m | d° m′ s.ss″ |
98 m | 85 m | 69 m | 49 m | d° m′ s.s″ |
760 m | 660 m | 540 m | 380 m | d° m′ s″ |
5.9 km | 5.1 km | 4.1 km | 2.9 km | d° m.m′ |
45 km | 39 km | 32 km | 23 km | d° m′ |
590 km | 510 km | 410 km | 290 km | d.d° |
For all larger objects, use d° |
Er... there is no relevant formula at WP:OPCOORD.- Yeah, I realized same while you were writing, and edited that out before you saved. Still working on developing the ability to get things right the first time.
Using your example, 1⁄10 is closer to 1⁄120 than to 1⁄2; 0.1 is far closer to 0.0083 than to 0.5.It's not obvious to me, actually!
Opposed to any of what I would call "exotic" forms in the dms tableOkay. It just makes the choice of a break point for the factor-of-60 jump more critical. If you actually want the point where x−1⁄10 = 1⁄10−x⁄60, then x = 12⁄59 = 1⁄4.91666 = 0.20338983. (And x = 2⁄9 = 1⁄4.5= 0.2222 for the jumps of 10.
The reason for the 0–30° jump is that the difference in cosine between 0° and 30° is quite small. The rate of change of circumference increases as you approach the pole (where the circumference becomes 0). Thus, it's pretty easy to interpolate.
If you divide the cosine into tenths, the corresponding angles (acos(1), acos(0.9), acos(0.8), etc.) are 0°, 25.84°, 36.87°, 45.57°, 53.13°, 60° (halfway!), 66.42°, 72.54°, 78.46°, 84.26°, 90°. The first tenth is more than 25°. The last tenth us less than 6°.
However, I had another thought. We want to encourage people to use resolution no finer than this advice. Going a bit coarser is not a problem; it's excessive precision we're warning against. Perhaps the table should be reordered to go from degrees down, and say "For objects no smaller than" size X use format Y. Same numbers, just rearranged.
Thoughts? 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 03:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
However, I had another thought.If I'm reading you correctly, this would only affect the very few border cases, at or very close to the break. Do I have that right? If so, I don't feel it's worth switching to descending size, which I think would feel less natural to the user. In the real world, there are far more ascending lists (telephone directory) than descending ones (none comes to mind at the moment). ― Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
71:
Interesting trivia. The comments at the bottom of the usage example at WP:COORDPREC, permalink involve a hypothetical case, 70 km and 30°. For that case, the existing tables give d.dd°, while the new tables give d.d°. Apparently that case is in one of the error windows closed by the new tables. ― Mandruss ☎ 05:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The following tables assist in choosing a good precision for your object's latitude and size. Refer to the preceding section for more information about coordinates precision. To use these tables:
[collapsed usage example here]
|
|
― Mandruss ☎ 06:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Talk:Wurdi Youang#RfC: should the coordinates be included in the article that may be of interest to participants in this project. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 14:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware of the RfC at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Deprecate named coordinates-related infobox parameters. As a result of the changes made, some articles have been popping up at
Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags as having duplicate coordinates—mainly articles using {{
Infobox protected area}} and {{
Infobox islands}}—which I've been removing from the category by deleting the named coordinate parameters and leaving the {{coord}}
. This morning, when I did so in
Chazy Fossil Reef, instead of the location map there appeared the error message "Lua error in Module:Location_map at line 362: No value was provided for longitude". This hasn't happened before—for instance, when I did the same thing to
Calanques National Park yesterday. I've been unable to track down the source of the problem. Any help here?
Deor (
talk)
16:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
There's an interesting puzzle at List of elevation extremes by country. IP User 202.87.162.173 ( talk · contribs) listed Deep Lake, in the Vestfold Hills, as the lowest elevation in Antarctica, providing [5] as a reference. That reference is (IMO) reliable to verify that Deep Lake is at -50m elevation, but remains silent as to whether that is the lowest elevation in Antarctica. I have been unable to find any source that verifies that Deep Lake is the deepest in Antarctica, so the claim is probably original research. However, I have been unable to find a deeper verified elevation (which is weak support for the claim).
To make things more complex, various reliable sources (such as the CIA World Factbook) list the Bentley Subglacial Trench at −2,540 m (−8,330 ft) as the lowest point in Antarctica. Of course, that point is covered with thousands of meters of ice. Wikipedia consensus seems to define surface elevation above ice, rather than below. This seems to match the commonly-held definition of elevation.
What to do? I am stymied. Comments welcome at Talk:List of elevation extremes by country. — hike395 ( talk) 03:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I have been working on converting Infobox templates as part of
Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes. I have come across a technical issue that I need help with. A couple of infoboxes, such as
Template:Infobox Municipality PT, test the value of |longd=
(longitude degrees) in order to decide which map to display in the infobox. It's very clever, but I haven't figured out how to replicate it using {{
Coord}}. Here's a simplified version of the current code:
| pushpin_map = {{#if: {{{longd|}}} | {{#ifexpr: {{{longd}}} > -10 | Portugal | {{#ifexpr: {{{longd}}} < -24 | Portugal Azores | Portugal Madeira }} }} }}
My question is: Assuming that we deprecate and remove the latd/longd parameters and replace them with the {{ Coord}} template, how do I implement this test in the infobox? Any links, ideas, or tips are appreciated. I poked through the archives for this talk page, but it's a tricky thing to search for. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
{{Coord|57|18|22|N|4|27|32|E}}
. It produces a string which includes <span class="geo">57.30611; 4.45889</span>
. The second number can be captured with {{#invoke:String|match|s={{{coordinates}}}|pattern=<span class="geo">.-; (.-)</span>}}
Test output: 4.45889. I haven't examined whether all {{
coord}} calls with valid parameters will output the expected string. If we use this in templates then we should make a separate template like {{
extract longd}} so the code can be adapted in a single place.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
12:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
{{#invoke:coordinates|coord2text|{{Coord|57|18|22|N|4|27|32|E}}|lat}}
and {{#invoke:coordinates|coord2text|{{Coord|57|18|22|N|4|27|32|E}}|long}}
.
Frietjes (
talk)
15:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
coord2text
and coordinsert
. I would think that they place to document these would be in the documentation for
Module:Coordinates, perhaps with a pointer from
Template:coord?
Frietjes (
talk)
14:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Template:Infobox map has been
nominated for merging with
Template:Location map. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —
hike395 (
talk)
03:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This article about using machine learning to geocode photographs is fascinating. -- The Anome ( talk) 15:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
We are now up to 996,644 geocoded articles. Within the next few months, we will reach the point where [en:] Wikipedia has 1,000,000 geocoded articles. We should start thinking about how we can use this milestone event to publicize this project, with the goal of recruiting new contributors and securing and improving collaboration with other projects. -- The Anome ( talk) 10:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
SELECT page_title, gc_lat, gc_lon, gc_globe, gc_type, gc_region, gc_primary
FROM u2815__p.coord_enwiki
JOIN page ON page_id=gc_from AND page_namespace=0
LEFT JOIN categorylinks ON cl_from=gc_from
AND cl_to IN ("Coordinates_on_Wikidata", "Coordinates_not_on_Wikidata")
WHERE cl_from IS NULL AND gc_globe='' /* Earth */
LIMIT 100;
I've added several to domains to the To Do list that we need to cull from the External links section. I've already done several thousand of the various Microsoft properties which already have coordinates. — Dispenser 19:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I have just changed jobs and being a keen editor used "special:near" to see what articles were around me. I noticed that a number of articles were are being missed despite containing coordinates, is there a role for a debugging tool to catch these and figure out the issues?
Back ache ( talk) 18:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I placed a citation needed Minute and second of arc#Cartography about the precision of minutes and degrees which doesn't match the mentioned in Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Precision guidelines. Can anyone check this? ※ Sobreira ◣◥ (parlez) 09:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I've added coords to the table in California Historical Landmarks in Fresno County, California for the site of the first junior college, but it won't appear in the map all coordinates using google. What have I done wrong? I have waited as suggested. Trilotat ( talk) 19:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Right now we have {{
Location map Japan}}
, which can be called in infoboxes by entering "Japan" as the map name. This produces the top map to the right. It can not be used for smaller locations such as
Iwo Jima, however. For that, we would need to use the bottom map to the right. Can someone make a new {{
Location map Japan full}}
(or whatever it should be named) so we can have a location map showing all of Japan? I would do it, but I don't understand the equations at the top of the templates. ···
日本穣 ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan!
23:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
An IP editor is making disruptive edits to Geographic coordinate system, making many ungrammatical edits. I urge editors to monitor this article. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox mountain#Rounding elevation: should we follow sources for rounding of elevation, or is rounding covered by the MoS? Feel free to join the discussion. — hike395 ( talk) 21:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Is "Do not add coordinates to the following types of articles: [...] Sports teams (add to the stadium article instead)" a Wikipedia policy, or just advice for members of this wikiproject? If the former, should templates like infobox football club have their "coordinates=" field removed? -- Gapfall ( talk) 17:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps a silly question, but should they, if they have an unambiguous real-world location within the fiction? This project page doesn't seem to say anything either way. (Digging around for an example, The 4400 Center has a street address and is represented on the TV show by the building which is at that location.) -- Gapfall ( talk) 09:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Greetings, Today I added the WP Semi-active notice to the project page. If enough editors feel this is not warranted, then it is okay with me to remove the tag. Any discussion is welcome. Regards, — JoeHebda • ( talk) 18:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I was wondering if there was a need or desire for a bot that rounds overprecise 8 or 7 digit coordinates down to 6, because there's a huge backlog of these (>11k), and I feel like writing a bot. While working on this WikiProject I have seen that other bots have contributed to this project, but I'm not sure if there's a list of them somewhere or an existing bot or tool I could run a batch job on. And if this discussion is better suited for a different location, I would be happy to move it. Brubsby ( talk) 21:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the harmfulness of needlessly precise coordinates needs to be judged differently for geographic coordinates than for most other numbers. If I write the equatorial radius of Pluto is 1,195,634 m, that is false precision, because according to page K7 in the Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2017 the value is 1,195 ± 5 km. I'm making up digits that no one actually knows. But if I give a geographic position, it's probably understood that I'm giving a point that falls within the associated feature. If I increase the precision, the point still falls within the feature, so it's still true (although not elegant).
Also keep in mind that the bot can't make the value elegant. An elegant value would be just precise enough to guarantee the point falls within the feature. That's way beyond the ability of the bot. The bot can only make many values less-inelegant, at the risk of throwing away meaningful precision. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I've gathered some data with the help of User:Dispenser, and have taken a random sample from all of the likely candidates for this bot. I'll describe my methodology a little, and report my findings.
Methodology
One of the easiest paths to gathering the necessary data was by looking at all external links to geohack, and then applying successive filters to get down to only the cases I am intending to change (overprecise dec coordinates). The filters I used were these:
The first three filters applied gave me a total count of 84,922 links, but this includes all links from every namespace (I believe). And I do not yet have an official count of all cases just in article space, but glupt should be a strong estimate.
Classification | Total | Notes | Example | Proposed action |
---|---|---|---|---|
overprec dec | 50 | Standard case where human editor simply over-specifies the precision | Adavi, Maharashtra | round |
overprec GNIS | 3 | Like the standard case, but where there's a GNIS reference that has usually 7 decimals of precision, not sure what to do about these | Antelope Valley (Nevada) | unsure |
overprec dec with format=dms | 16 | These are like the first case, but with format=dms, they appear nicely in the article due to this, but the geohack link is still overprecise. In addition, rounding these down would not altar the appearance of the links in the article at all, as 6 decimal places of precision is more than format=dms shows. | Hill Close Gardens, Warwick | round |
overprec dec on lat/lon template (presented as dms) | 27 | These require more investigation I believe, as they're using lat/lon in a template instead of a {{ coord}}. These cases are also somewhat oversampled, because my random distribution weights every link instead of every page with a link. And these pages had a lot of imported coordinates. | Grade II* listed buildings in Anglesey | ignore/address separately |
transcluded from wikidata | 1 | Out of scope for this bot. If this bot is successful, running a similar bot on wikidata might be a good future task. | Itsukushima Shrine | ignore |
articles I wouldn't touch | 1 | Articles that, as a human editor, I'm not sure if they should be this precise or not. The canonical "put on the blacklist" articles | List of WAAS reference stations | blacklist |
rounding error dec | 1 | Articles that have floating point errors from previous bots and should be rounded down | Meșeni | round |
transcluded from another list | 1 | This will be ignored by the bot, simply included because I was not looking at wikisource directly | List of National Monuments in Connacht | ignore |
Open Questions
So, after conducting this research I'm still confident in my proposal for this bot, but would like to request comments from the community.
Thanks! Brubsby ( talk) 17:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Is there any consensus as to whether {{coord|12|3|45|N|67|8|9|W}} or {{coord|12|03|45|N|67|08|09|W}} is preferable? By analogy with HH:MM:SS, I've been using leading zeroes on single-digit degrees and seconds, but I see many examples that don't. — Steve Summit ( talk) 02:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm proposing to standardise the map parameter names in infoboxes; please see, and comment at, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Standardising map parameters in infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm mulling the idea of removing the 0° columns from the tables at WP:COORDPREC, but I wanted to seek some comments first. A close look at the tables reveals that this change would affect only one narrow set of cases: DMS format coordinates, object size ~300km-750km, latitude 0°-15°. The table currently suggests d° m' for those cases and that would become d°. So I wonder whether the 0° columns earn their keep. While removing the 0° column from the decimal-format table alone would have no effect at all, I'd prefer to keep the table formats consistent with each other. ― Mandruss ☎ 13:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I think you guys might be being overprecise by several orders of magnitude. I have never needed to go more precise than 0.5" to mark even such objects as statues. I was told at here at WP:Geographical_coordinates many years ago to stick to arcseconds or to dd.dddd° (four digits) for the most precision one would ever need. Abductive ( reasoning) 05:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for 180th meridian to be moved to Antimeridian. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 20:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
How do I attach more than one set of coordinates to an article? Several schools for example have multiple campuses and I want to add the data for all campuses.
Thanks WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
{{
Coord}}
with |display=inline
(that's the default, so you can alternatively omit the |display=
parameter).
Pioneer Library System shows one method using a table.
Norman, Oklahoma#Geography includes coordinates within the text. Optionally, you can include a {{
GeoGroup}}
in "External links" to allow display of all the article's coordinates on one map; see
Pioneer Library System#External links. ―
Mandruss
☎
04:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a proposal to merge Vertical metre into Metres above sea level. Please feel free to join in the discussion at Talk:Metres above sea level#Vertical metre merge. — hike395 ( talk) 13:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I made some changes to the GeoGroup template. See discussion on template talk page - Samuel Wiki ( talk) 07:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The Geohack link arrived at by clicking on the coordinates on the Whitlingham article has 'Wikimedia maps' on the RHS rather than 'Great Britain', I have noticed that the region parameter in the panel at the top is missing, it should be 'GB', any ideas ? Thanks GrahamHardy ( talk) 09:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
I've just added my first georef (as far as I remember). Hope there's nothing obviously wrong in that. (Wikimedia shows no syntax error.) It produces a link to this page at Geohack. The upper half of this is a list of "Global services" and another of "Japan". Looking at the latter:
I scored seven out of nine. Should I be grateful (are glitches common), or does something need attention?
And a trivia (I think!) point: I provided the coordinates for a point that eyeballing suggests isn't far off the centre of the island. Is this good enough, or should I have instead chosen (i) the point halfway between the NSEW extremities, or (ii) the centre of the island imagined as a smoothly rotating mass of uniform material and thickness, or (iii) something else? (If the second, how would I determine it?) -- Hoary ( talk) 06:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
&x=ppp&y=qqq
you should give it (say) &lat=ppp&lon=qqq
. But what the new parameter syntax for that specific website has become, I couldn't say.Some coordinates on Wikipedia are listed in decimal degrees, some in degrees/minutes/seconds. There doesn't seem to be any pattern. I'm not surprised, as it's something of a personal preference. (If anything, my only surprise is not to have encountered a pointless flamewar over which format is "better".) Nevertheless, I think it'd be good to touch on this issue in the guidelines, if only to say, "there is no standard, use whichever you prefer, and if you want to see them all the same way across Wikipedia, use the display preferences in common.css, please don't start editing them all."
Similarly, I suspect there's no standard for the geodetic point we identify for cities (whether of the centroid, the central business district, city hall, that nice fountain in the middle of the park in the middle of downtown, etc.), but again, it'd be nice to touch on the issue, because the question comes up.
Finally, is there a preference to avoid redundant coordinates in articles? For example, some cities contain coordinates in the settlement infobox, and also an invocation of the Coord template, and sometimes the coordinates are different. I would have thought this was to be avoided (that is, that articles on entities with coordinates in the infobox should never contain explicit Coord invocations), but I noticed that the article we cite as an example, Los Angeles, does it this way, and with some extra markup for a "Geographic locale" boxlet which might or might not be important to someone to preserve. — Steve Summit ( talk) 16:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
For larger objects like cities, the current guidance is to to reduce precision to something appropriate to the size of the object, and then pick something vaguely "near the middle". Rather than precisely specifying an official center or canonical point in the city. There's a bit on that at WP:OPCOORD. There's been on and off discussion of supporting some way of specifying actual areas for non-point locations, possibly through Wikidata, and/or possibly by pulling in the outline from OpenStreetMap, in cases where they have one. -- Delirium ( talk) 02:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
A few days ago the boxed category links under "Fix", such as "Talk pages requiring geodata verification" for user-reported coord problems, stopped showing the "There are no pages in this category" message (or whatever it was; I can't recall exactly) under each link when the categories were empty; and I've just discovered that they don't now show links to the pages needing attention when there are items in a category. (Yes, I'm aware that one used to have to do a null edit to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/to do to update the page. I used to check for problems regularly by doing that, but now one has to click on each link separately to see whether there are any pages in the categories.) I don't know enough about how such things work to identify what exactly was changed; can anyone here figure it out? Deor ( talk) 20:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I have implemented a temporary fix until categorytree is working again. -- Bamyers99 ( talk) 02:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I know that there are many articles that I have worked on that will not show coordinates on Google Earth, even if the information on it has been there for a year. Do we know why this might be? Thanks! Kevin Rutherford ( talk) 22:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
To my surprise, it seems that GNIS queries now require a login. Fortunately, existing GNIS links are not broken, Has anyone tried to get an account? — hike395 ( talk) 13:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I added coordinates to Pinnacles National Forest, so it's no longer categorized as missing coordinates; but now is under category:Coordinates not on Wikidata. I'm not clear on whether anything further ought to be done. The terse instructions at Wikidata:Coordinates tracking ("import it") are pretty unclear to me. TJRC ( talk) 21:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I tried to find guidelines about whether and how GPS coordinates should be used in articles about events. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Geographical_coordinates does not have anything to say about this. This project's page offers some more information:
My concern is two fold:
I've just noticed that rather few of our articles on the world's countries actually have coordinates for the countries. Is this deliberate? (Part of the reason may be that the {{ Infobox country}} template has lat and long parameters that seem to have been usurped for the coordinates of the capital city, so they can't be used for the whole country. I've also raised this question on the template talk page.) — Steve Summit ( talk) 02:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, I've tabulated the numbers of US articles needing coordinates at Category talk:United States articles missing geocoordinate data by ripping off the UK equivalent - previously there was no easy way to eg see that there were 3,309 articles needing geotagging in California, as it was spread over 59 subcategories. Hopefully that might inspire some people to have a go at reducing the backlog - at least the US doesn't have the medieval lost buildings/events that the UK does, which take a lot of research to locate! Each state has typically only a couple of hundred, so it makes for a nice finite little sub-project; CA Wikpedians can tackle it a county at a time. I've also knocked a load of UK/Wales/US coord missings down into their respective subcats. Le Deluge ( talk) 13:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if there's any point in storing coordinates for something other than articles? What can be the use cases for searching outside of mainspace? Currently, there are some pages mostly in userspace with a lot of coordinate templates and I was thinking of not storing their coordinates in database. Here is the list of 100 pages with most coordinates. Thoughts? Max Semenik ( talk) 20:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys,
I have been breaking my head trying to get the coordinates right for the location map we are using for
Sevastopol: {{
Location map Sevastopol}}
Can someone lend a hand? I can't figure it out correctly and when we invoke it on infoboxes the pushpins are placed incorrectly on the map.
— Ahnoneemoos ( talk) 17:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
{{
Location map Sevastopol}}
. It will take someone more adept with templates than I to fix that (though I will note that the longitude range in the template appears to be too wide).
Deor (
talk)
19:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Hi, please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Convert#Template:Circle_of_latitude — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.208.33 ( talk) 11:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Template:Lunar coords and quad cat ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for merger. -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 06:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I've been having some snafus with Chinese coordinates, particularly for the city of Nanjing seeing differences between where the coordinate lands in Google earth vs. Google map mode.
For Qingliangshan Park, the article has the {{coord|32|03|07|N|118|45|24|E|region:CN-32_type:mountain_source:kolossus-dewiki|display=title}} coordinate... but it does not show up in the right place in Google or Baidu maps. It does, though, in Map Quest.
Do you know how I can verify if this is the right coordinate? And, if it doesn't display correctly, it is wise to use the coor template?
Thanks!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 00:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
For some time, I've been tracking the progress of geocoding on enwiki, and I just thought that I should let you all know that we are making excellent progress.
As of today, roughly 85% of all potentially geocodeable articles now have coordinates, and most new geocodeable articles are typically geocoded either on creation, or within a month of creation. The backlog is now at the lowest level ever since I started monitoring it in late 2010, measured as a ratio of the size of the backlog to the number of articles on Wikipedia, and is also very nearly at its lowest ever in absolute terms. (See User:The Anome/Number of articles needing coordinates for details.)
Kudos to all involved. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
A call has been made for other languages to write on Welsh themes. A great start today with many new articles. Any help in running this would be appreciated - grab the reins and to the wind! Llywelyn2000 ( talk) 22:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it, all Toolserver tools are scheduled to be deleted at the end of this month. I, for one, find tools such as coord-enwiki.log and glupt.log invaluable for identifiying formatting and other errors in the geotagging of WP articles, though Dispenser has apparently no interest in migrating the tools to Wikimedia Labs. I fear the inevitable degradation of geocoding on WP articles in the absense of such tools; is there really nothing that can be done to forestall this? Deor ( talk) 16:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Template:Lunar coords and quad cat ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for merger. -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 05:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious, where does the layer that marks a river (e.g in the WikiMiniAtlas at Yarmouk River) comes from? What in the page links to it? trespassers william ( talk) 13:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk)
17:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have to report that the very useful 'nearby' feature, which used the coordinates added by our hard work to display the tagged articles nearest to the user's location, has been removed from the official Wikipedia app for Android, in today's upgrade. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I have studied the tables at WP:OPCOORD on this page, and I would like to inquire as to the value of rows 3 and 5 of the left-hand table. They provide precisions for one-tenth of a minute and one-hundredth of a minute, respectively. Is it possible to show fractional minutes in coordinates (e.g. 34°27.3'N)? If it's possible, would anyone actually do that rather than use the seconds value (34°27'18"N)? If not, what would one do with that information? To me it seems to only get in the way of one's understanding of the table and the concepts represented therein. Any comments? Cheers, Mandruss ( talk) 12:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
After struggling with coordinates precision for awhile, I created some tables that I think would be useful to other editors. Do you see a place for these in existing help files? If so, where? Mandruss ( talk) 11:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This may seem a trivial point, but maybe not to some. The first three cells of the first row of the dms table would more correctly contain d° m' s.sss". I used d° m' s.ss" there because (1) I've never seen anyone use seconds to three decimal positions, (2) the table at
WP:OPCOORD only goes to two decimal positions, and (3) the difference isn't all that significant at that level. I'm willing to change that if anyone wants me to.
Mandruss (
talk)
14:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the above change because (1) I decided it's not appropriate for the table to suggest an arbitrary upper limit on precision, and (2) I wanted something to do. I'm willing to change it back if anyone wants me to.
Mandruss (
talk)
08:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I have added the tables to the project page following the existing info at WP:OPCOORD. Although they might be of interest to some people using Template:Coord, they're not about how to code that template. That doc links once to WP:OPCOORD in its Quick guide section, saying "Avoid excessive precision." Hopefully, people who use the new tables and think they're useful will link to WP:OPCOORD in related edit summaries. There might be a case to be made for a new shortcut, if enough people start using the tables. Mandruss ( talk) 13:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I asked this question in Teahouse and was directed here. This article is catted as needing coordinates. It is about an outbreak of wildfires across two states. It refers to locations using city and county names which are all linked. Looking for advice as to how to approach.
Thanks! Mandruss ( talk) 22:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Are these really necessary? All they have is a list of cities that pass through them, so they don't seem to have much useful information. (except, of course, the Prime Meridian and Equator, Tropic of Cancer, etc.) See Template:Geographical coordinates for the whole list of lat/long articles.
Maybe all the minor articles could be merged into a "Lines of Latitude" and "Lines of Longitude" article, with a table with famous cities that pass through each line. Llightex ( talk) 21:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
We need a new template (like template:Coord/Wikidata) which give its parameter from Wikidata, d:Property:P625. Thank you.-- Çalak ( talk) 11:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
|region=
, nor |type=
. These still need to be set locally, according to
this discussion.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
12:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
This new and, I hope, exciting graph shows the apparent recent improvement in progress as of September/October 2014, after a recent period of having settled down to just keeping pace with Wikipedia's growth (although that itself is a significant achievement, given the vastness of Wikipedia and its rapid growth rate). The new trend seems to be have kept steady for two months, so I suspect this is a real trend, not just data fluctuation.
If (entirely hypothetically) this rate of straight-line improvement were to be kept up indefinitely, we would hit 100% somewhere in 2021-2022. Whether the apparent improvement in the rate of progress can be sustained (I would expect something more like a logistic curve in practice), and whether it was caused by the start of transwiki copying from Wikidata, is an interesting question -- The Anome ( talk) 14:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
There are currently over 13,000 articles outstanding in Category:Iran articles missing geocoordinate data. It would be a big win if we could geocode these. Does anyone have access to either better machine-readable coordinates than are stored in GNIS, or (perhaps) a better approach to string-matching Arabic place-names than mere string comparison?
In addition, since I don't speak Farsi and thus can't do it myself, is anyone here an editor on fawiki, or a Farsi speaker willing to work with me on somehow cross-connecting geocoding efforts between the two projects? A look at the Google translation of fa:ویکیپدیا:ویکیپروژه_مختصاتدهی seems to show that there is a local community already there working on the problem. -- The Anome ( talk) 14:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@ The Anome:
Some or all of these may have occurred to you; but in case not:
-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
The Bool, Tagbilaran article currently has coordinates 9°37′58.80″N 123°52′48.00″E which I hear may be overly precise per WP:OPCOORD. A suggested change is 9°37′N 123°52′E, but that is then on another island.
(I am used to using a coordinate template, generated from geolocator, which doesn't work on the settlement Infobox. And, have never come upon this issue of over-precision before.)
Do you think that the 9°37′58.80″N 123°52′48.00″E could be used? If not, how do we get to coordinates that are not overly precise, but are at least in the correct general area of Tagbilaran? Thanks!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 09:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The conversation after my 09:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC) posting is pretty much over my head. I used 9°37′50″N 123°52′50″E. Is that good, or should something else be used? Thanks!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 22:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see this page from Google; we're about to be losing KML support for Google Maps classic, and apparently KML files can't be hosted on the ugly new version of Google Maps either. Cross-posting to the technical village pump. Nyttend ( talk) 04:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
As many of you know, The Anomebot2 has recently been importing coordinates from Wikidata into en.wikipedia articles. The rationale for this is clear—adding coordinates to articles that previously lacked them is certainly a positive contribution. There are, however, certain aspects of this activity that give me pause:
The obvious response to this is that adding the coordinates is a Good Thing and that any problems can be corrected by Wikipedia editors in the normal course of work. On the other hand, the number of editors who deal with coordinates is not great, and it's extremely difficult for human editors to keep up with the pace at which a bot can import them. (I spent roughly 20 hours emending the Bulgarian-village coordinates and moving them into the articles' infoboxes so that location maps would display for the places.) Do any of the readers of this page have thoughts on the matter? Deor ( talk) 11:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a bug in Wikdiata, relating to coordinates; I'd wait for that to be resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
|coordinates = {{coord|55.752222|N|37.615556|E|format=dec|name=Moscow}}but what we actually have is
|latitude= |longitude=
-- Superzoulou ( talk) 14:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should we favor displaying geographic coordinates in decimal notation—versus DMS (degrees, minutes, seconds)? — EncMstr ( talk) 18:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Here are my comments duplicated from above (which seem lost in other comments):
— EncMstr ( talk) 18:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
{{
coord}}
and/or its module to ignore the format= parameter and assume it was specified as format=dec.{{
coord}}
. (keep_original=yes?) Support for this should eventually be dropped once DMS vs. decimal is not contentious.{{coord}}
template and most infoboxes, it's easy to change the formatting to display d/m/s even if the underlying coordinates are decimal; and I don't see why such displays should be discouraged, since they are after all the traditional format for expressing coordinates, and I'm a traditional guy. (I also like specifying d/m/s display for coordinates entered in decimal format that require five or more decimal places of precision, because of the rounding.) In short, I see no reason why we should try to suggest or enforce a specific format; most folks, I'm sure, just click through the coordinates to look at a map, and the format doesn't matter to them at all. A greater problem, it seems to me, is the prevalence of too-precise coordinates in articles, in both formats.
Deor (
talk)
19:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)There is an element of pointlessness to this discussion, in a way. Let users enter the coordinates however they like, and the templates then change it to decimal if required. I'm opposed if users will be forced to convert coordinates, and in favor if templates will do it for them. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 23:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
{{
coord}}
parameters. —
EncMstr (
talk)
23:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)I just asked the Village Pump Technical to provide input as to whether this is doable. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 23:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
{{
coord}}
already supports |format=dec
. As I understand it, we're only talking about changing the default, from "the format used to specify them" to decimal format. Of course that's doable. ‑‑
Mandruss
☎
00:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)EncMstr, should the proposition be clarified before more discussion? ‑‑ Mandruss ☎ 23:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
|format=dms
or |format=dec
is used; these force that output format regardless of the input format - which may still be either one. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
00:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC){{
coord}}
regardless of parameters is about twice as far as I had imagined—at least initially. Changing it so that format=dms is ignored is about as far as I was thinking; instead display DMS only if the coordinates are given in DMS. If there is community buy in on that much, and no one can give a compelling reason to regard DMS on an equal footing to decimal, then perhaps in a year or two, ignoring the original format and always displaying decimal would be in order. —
EncMstr (
talk)
02:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)|format=dms
is not coded. ‑‑
Mandruss
☎
04:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)I would suggest dropping the item about assuming 40 degrees, as it doesn't gain anything. The code would still have to calculate the precision based on 40 degrees (object size would still be a variable). The tooltip change would be a nice touch, but we should bear in mind that the reader will be one click away from the DMS equivalent anyway, since GeoHack gives both formats up at the top of the page. I would Support it even as currently written, as I think it would be a substantial improvement, but I'll wait a bit before I bother to refactor my !vote. ‑‑ Mandruss ☎ 08:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Pigsonthewing, Chris857, Imzadi1979, and Justlettersandnumbers: I saw Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Archive 28#Links to Google Maps and it looks like you are the best ones I found to ask the question. I've got a user insisting on using Google and only Google maps as a reference.
An example article is Allevard. This Google maps is referencing these three statements:
I'm not comfortable with this because:
Bgwhite ( talk) 07:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It appears that links to
https://maps.google.com/ - such as the one titled "Map all microformatted coordinates" in {{
GeoGroup}}
- will stop working soon. I've started a thread at
Template talk:GeoGroup#Viewing KML data in Google Maps. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
19:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
In the four articles I've added coordinates to (so far) today— Embassy of Uruguay, Washington, D.C.; Nkamba; Apeejay School, Mahavir Marg; and Ferdinand I National College—the title-position coordinates are displaying fine for me in the first two, whereas in the second two they are displaying in an increased size. Is anyone else seeing this? Can anyone figure out what might be the cause? Deor ( talk) 15:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
After about 9 months, is it finally time to delete the links to Dispenser's tools ("coord-enwiki.log", "Coordinate check tallies", "Red link prefix search", and "Coordinates around 0°,0°") in the "Fix" section of the project's to-do list (transcluded at the top of this page)? It doesn't look as though they will ever be migrated to, or recreated at, Tool Labs. A damn shame, in my opinion, since they were quite useful in identifying coordinate problems, but I seem to have been a lone voice crying in the wilderness when I brought the matter up at the time. Deor ( talk) 11:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Is there any way to add or update coordinates in an article remotely? Via some webservice or other API ? ♆ CUSH ♆ 21:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Dthomsen8 has been doing some excellent work on geolocating articles on airports/airfields that are currently missing coordinates. I've generated a list at User:The Anome/Airports missing coordinates to help them in this process: if any other editors want to help geocode more articles on that list, I'd greatly appreciate it. -- The Anome ( talk) 13:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Are there any guidelines for public services like Annapolis Valley Regional Library and Halifax Regional Fire and Emergency? Should the coordinates be for the headquarters or the approximate center of the area they serve? Derek Andrews ( talk) 12:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Would it be good to have {{ convert}} support coordinate angle-unit conversions between decimal degrees and degrees-minutes-seconds? template talk:convert has a discussion going on -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 04:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
It is not clear to me how elevation should be included in the coord markup. The SNO detector is more than a mile underground, so elevation is required for an accurate position. Could someone please tell me how to include elevation in the markup? Thanks. Boardhead ( talk) 13:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Recently, the GeoHack page that readers are sent to when they click on coordinates in articles has been changed. It now displays a big "Wikimedia maps beta" map (similar, but not identical, to an Open Street Map) at top left and a data table at top right. One wonders why the relevant, linked region code (when one is used in the article) does not appear in the latter, as it did on the old GeoHack pages. Is including a region parameter in {{coord}}
no longer useful? (Also, in some cases, where there used to be a displayed WikiMiniAtlas map, all I'm getting now is a big gray box with "JavaScript disabled" at the top. This looks pretty clunky, especially since the WikiMiniAtlas map seems to have been made redundant by the "Wikimedia maps beta" map.)
Deor (
talk)
16:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The tables whose format is being debated above have a far worse problem. The first line says that objects of 1m size should be given to 0.001 second precision. This translates to a location with 3 cm (1 inch). In fact, very few points on the entire Earth are known to that accuracy, which means that almost all the coordinates given in Wikipedia to that number of digits are lies! If we really knew locations that accurately we would have to adjust them every year for continental drift. A location stated to that precision pretends that we know where something is about 100 times as accurately as a modern expensive GPS receiver can provide. The table actively encourages people to mindlessly copy meaningless extra digits from Google Maps, even though the typical accuracy of Google Maps is 5–10 meters [2]. As a scientifically trained person I find this embarrassing. I propose that only places whose location has been professionally measured to higher accuracy (the top layer of surveying points in a recently-surveyed country, for example) should have more than one digit after the decimal point for seconds. Even that one digit will be uncertain in most cases. Zero talk 03:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
See false precision for an article on this topic. Zero talk 03:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
(This section does not appear left-adjusted. Can anyone see why? If you can fix it, please feel free to delete this question.) Zero talk 03:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
This translates to a location with 3 cm (1 inch). In fact, very few points on the entire Earth are known to that accuracy.
This translates to a location with 3 cm (1 inch).- No, the 3 cm you refer to is the resolution of that precision, not the object size. The object size is 1 m. In any case, you seem to be saying that the tables are bad because they can be misused, with which I disagree. All guidance on anything can be misused. People need to use appropriate object sizes if they wish to use the tables.
The formatting problem disappears if I comment out the tables above with the red heading "DRAFT values for discussion...". I'm not too good at tables but I suspect some syntax error there. If someone can see the problem, we'll appreciate it. Zero talk 05:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
In general, what should be the focus of coords for small linear subjects? I'm trying to reduce the size of Category:Ohio articles missing geocoordinate data, but many of the articles are topics such as streams and bicycle trails: they're too minimal and too poorly defined to warrant something like the KML files used for highways, they're too short to warrant multiple coords (most of them don't have any significant locations except source and mouth), and I'm not sure whether the mouth of a stream or some other spot should be used. Nyttend ( talk) 16:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm a bit nonplussed at an article such as Northampton Castle which has a coordinate in the infobox, below the fold, but lacks a coord in the top right. I'm used to & prefer coords at the top right of the page (i.e. display=title) & hate having to hunt for them. (I have no objection to their being in the infobox as well, even if this amounts to duplication.) I tend to think that users are better served by a consistent position in the article for singular coords. Would anyone like to weigh in on the subject of whether we should care & if so whether we might do something about this? -- Tagishsimon (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
|coordinates_display=both
to say whether the coordinates should be in the title, and that page just doesn't have it set (I guess that is so articles can have multiple boxes). --
Scott Davis
Talk
06:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)|coordinates_display=both
, |coordinates_type=landmark
, and |coordinates_region=GB-NTH
. ―
Mandruss
☎
06:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)I have the New York City missing cooordinates list down to 99 articles, but I have some questions:
Note: A request to change the map indicator type is ongoing at Module_talk:Location_map. Please comment there if interested. — xaosflux Talk 14:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Greetings, project members. In case you are interested in contributing, WikiProject Oregon's current collaboration is adding coordinates to the 200 articles in Category:Oregon articles missing geocoordinate data. See here for the talk page discussion. (You'll also see a related pushpin map discussion in the section above.) If you are able to pitch in, any help would be appreciated! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 00:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been brought up before, I've had a rummage through the archive and didn't see anything. My mind has been wandering as it does, and it occurred to me, that through the magic of
Automatic Identification System it is possible to access the position of ships in near-realtime via a web API.
This is one example but
this map only requires a ship's
IMO number (and although it's not visible on the map, one can extract the coordinates from the source if you search for "latitude", it's in the script at the end). So in theory one could grab that location and present it on a ship's article. I appreciate that there's plenty of work may be needed to make this happen - not least having a conversation with one of providers of AIS data. There's quite a few, ranging from comprehensive ones that track from space, to cooperatives of people who own land-based detectors who exchange data between themselves but don't have such good coverage. The space ones are better, but they charge for API access, at least, so we'd need to do a bit of fluttering of eyelashes to get one of those on board. You could get away with hitting the API say once an hour and then caching it on Wikidata - the average merchant ship is only going to move 10-20 miles in that time, if people want a more recent update they could go to the partner site (which means there's something in it for the partner site assuming they have adverts or sell more subscriptions). All passenger ships, and all cargo ships over 300t, have to squawk AIS when travelling internationally (and in many domestic jurisdictions); military ships aren't obliged to squawk but generally do in peacetime, certainly in busy shipping lanes. I'd imagine there's similar APIs to access the position of spacecraft and the like.
It's not just of theoretical interest, there are some practical uses. For instance, the available sources suggest that the first
Tide-class tanker was meant to be leaving a Korean shipyard by the end of 2015 for delivery to the UK, but the above map shows that it is still undergoing sea trials in Korea, so one puts less weight on what the sources say about planned delivery dates. Any thoughts?
Le Deluge (
talk)
23:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Any thoughts?- This strikes me as a feature with nonzero benefit but greater cost. I also question whether real-time ship tracking, essentially a maritime flightradar24.com, is within the mission of an encyclopedia. I don't know who would implement this, but it seems likely that there would always be something more pressing on their plates. If you wish to pursue this, I think WP:VPI would be a more suitable venue, as well as giving it more exposure. ― Mandruss ☎ 01:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I see that Flickr have a large database of outline polygons for geographical entities, generated from their own internal data and released under a CC-BY license. (See http://code.flickr.net/2011/01/08/flickr-shapefiles-public-dataset-2-0/ for details.) I'm planning to use this to set both the scale and region parameters for all Wikipedia articles which use {{ coord}} to generate their coordinates, and have both names and existing coordinates that match the Flickr dataset.
This will touch several tens of thousands of articles at the very least, and should represent a substantial improvement in the quality of our data, but will make no difference to the actual appearance of any article, so there will be zero disruption. Where existing scale or country data is present, I will not override it, but instead log it for later analysis. Once this is done, I can also look at the possibility of doing the same to articles with coordinates generated by infobox parameters.
I'm also considering the possibility of importing WOEIDs from this dataset into the Wikidata items for these articles. See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Place#WOEID for more details. -- The Anome ( talk) 08:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I asked this at the Village Pump but received no answers. Apologies if it's been asked before. It looks like Google has not updated the 'Wikipedia' layer in the Google Earth database in some time -- many of the placemarks are appearing at slightly (or significantly) different locations, that I know I and other editors have corrected.
Does anyone know who at Google is responsible for importing our dumps into their database layer, so that we can prod them into maybe doing a fresh update sometime?
(To cite one example, I corrected the coordinates in our article on the Buildings at 15-17 Lee Street a year and a half ago, but Google Earth is still displaying it at the old, less-accurate location. And I've found other examples that are even older.) — Steve Summit ( talk) 13:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I see differences between de:Vorlage:Positionskarte Ukraine Oblast Kiew and Template:Location map Ukraine Kiev Oblast by using same coordinates. Can anybody explain these differences ? I want to use a map in de:Woodpecker (Kurzwellensignal) like in Duga radar. -- Fmrauch ( Talk) 22:17, 26. Apr. 2016 (CEST)
Now I see: there was a mistake Diff. The problem in the German version is that I can't use a position outside the boarder of the map without getting an error message. So I used lat=51.56 instead. -- Fmrauch ( talk) 20:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
just thought I'd drop you folks a line wasn't sure if you've had a look at Template:Gbmapping - there are some obvious overlaps with template:coord EdwardLane ( talk) 22:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
{{coord}}
in articles about UK places.) There's no real overlap.
Deor (
talk)
23:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Wikipedia:WikiProject_whatever
, and here it looks like a link this project was in the
Louisiana to-do's. It was implemented this way because categories and the names of the templates vary greatly. I had not considered the to-do's, though. That could have links to all sorts of WikiProjects! I will work on a fix, but hey, glad we got a kick out this hilarious bug. I have
blacklisted this WikiProject from being notified for the time being. Cheers —
MusikAnimal
talk
04:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Hi! It's been a few years since your project was featured in the Signpost. Would anyone be interested in talking about new additions/technology, etc? I'd love to interview a few of you. Please ping me! Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 20:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
How can I add two (or more) geotags to a single article? I'm sure I've seen it before somewhere...-- الدبوني ( talk) 12:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Please join a discussion of geographic coordinate formats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Template talk:Attached KML#Proposal: Use Wikidata and new module.
Evad37 [
talk
12:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
For Spock's sake, don't encourage "globe:earth". It's the default, and will remain so even after humans have colonized Europa (or gone extinct). - A876 ( talk) 04:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Droll and I are having a disagreement about how to round metric values for elevations and prominences in articles that use {{ Infobox mountain}}. Specifically, the disagreement focuses on articles that take these values from Peakbagger.
My position is based on MOS:UNCERTAINTY and MOS:CONVERSIONS. What I want to do is check the precision of each of the elevation and prominence values from the sources, and use the {{ convert}} template to keep the same amount of precision in the metric as in the imperial. (This implies that we cannot use automated editing to put precision into infoboxes). For example, for Twin Sisters Mountain, the summit elevation is only known through 40' contour lines, so I want to present the elevation rounded to the nearest 10 meters: 7,000+ feet (2,130+ m)
Droll's position is based on verifiability. Peakbagger is a reliable source, so we should present the metric elevation that they present. Peakbagger presents metric elevations rounded to the nearest meter, so it's ok to use automated editing to set the precision. For Twin Sisters Mountain, the elevation should be 7,000+ feet (2,134+ m), the same as the elevation listed on the Peakbagger page.
What do other editors think? — hike395 ( talk) 14:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see related RfC (permalink), now closed. ― Mandruss ☎ 03:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Unless there are objections, I'm going to add this bullet under "Which coordinates to use":
This seems mostly uncontroversial, but I'm bringing it up here because I've come across a number of reservoirs (example: Lake Elwell) which list the coordinates of the dam that impounds them. I don't know if this has been done as a matter of expediency by someone who already knew the dam coordinates, or because someone thought it was preferable.
While we're at it, is it worth adding any explicit guidance about features with a crescent or otherwise irregular outline? Consider Ross Island (Oregon). For such a feature, I'm always torn between using a coordinate that's at the approximate geometrical center (but in the case of Ross Island, in the water in the lagoon in the middle), versus offsetting the point significantly such that it's actually on the feature. (I guess one reason not to provide explicit guidance is that it's pretty hard to even describe the situation concisely!)
Any thoughts? — Steve Summit ( talk) 15:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I am reverting this. My eyes can discern very little to no difference between the two characters, and the information is for visual reference only. Why switch to a character that no one has on their keyboard? Finally, the edit removed the spaces between the d, m, and s elements, which greatly aid readability. Not an improvement. ― Mandruss ☎ 08:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
coord}}
, considering how the tables are used. You use them to choose a precision, which you then use in coding {{
coord}}
's positional parameters or infobox parameters such as |lat_d=
, etc. The one thing you won't code is anything in the format of the output from {{
coord}}
.Use precision |
For objects no larger than | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
0° | 30° | 45° | 60° | |
d° m′ s.sss″ | ||||
d° m′ s.ss″ | ||||
d° m′ s.s″ | ||||
d° m′ s″ | ||||
d° m′ | ||||
d° |
|
|
The values could be computed with {{#expr}} if desired.- I hope and assume you mean doing that as a one-time, throw-away thing, rather than putting that in the table entries and doing the computations every time the page is downloaded.
An open question is how the advice should be phrased for objects exactly the size of the breakpoint.- There aren't likely to be many cases like that, as the break points won't be the round numbers that editors will use to estimate object sizes. But if I'm thinking correctly the "no larger than" advice would give the higher of the two precisions in that case, which is ok and probably better.
I hope and assume you mean doing that as a one-time, throw-away thing, rather than putting that in the table entries and doing the computations every time the page is downloaded.Actually, I meant the opposite. Remember that mediawiki caches formatted pages, so it does not convert wikimarkup to HTML each time. Also, the cost of doing the computation is actually quite minimal, less than a normal template invocation. (Since the latter requires a database lookup which #expr does not.)
Still oppose...I don't really care; it's just the software developer in me that prefers to embed things in executable code rather than comments that can go stale. Like I prefer to use {{ convert}} where possible, even for measurements that aren't going to change. But the implementation techniques are a minor point not worth derailing the main discussion: what should the output look like.
|
|
Do those numbers look right, or does the formula need adjusting? 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 19:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
it's just the software developer in me that prefers to embed things in executable codeYeah, the software developer in me feels strongly about the KISS principle and gives it a high priority. As you said, shouldn't be a big point of contention. You're doing that part of the work, so you get to choose.
Why don't rows 3 and 4 of the dms table differ by a factor of 10?Because row 4 is followed by a scale jump of 60×, while row 3 is followed by one of 10x. So we stay with seconds a bit longer (to objects of size larger than 1.72 km) to avoid having too little precision when we jump to minutes.
"give precisions approximately one tenth the size of the object", and it's not clear if, when the choice is between 1/2 the size of the object and 1/120, which is preferred. The obvious thing to me to do is to set a goal of 1/10, but allow it to be missed by a factor of √60 = 7.746 on either side. That is, allow a precision as coarse as 0.7746 the size of the object before changing to a 60× finer resolution
For objects no larger than | Use precision | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
0° | 30° | 45° | 60° | |
0.98 m | 0.85 m | 0.69 m | 0.49 m | d° m′ s.sss″ |
9.8 m | 8.5 m | 6.9 m | 4.9 m | d° m′ s.ss″ |
98 m | 85 m | 69 m | 49 m | d° m′ s.s″ |
760 m | 660 m | 540 m | 380 m | d° m′ s″ |
5.9 km | 5.1 km | 4.1 km | 2.9 km | d° m.m′ |
45 km | 39 km | 32 km | 23 km | d° m′ |
590 km | 510 km | 410 km | 290 km | d.d° |
For all larger objects, use d° |
Er... there is no relevant formula at WP:OPCOORD.- Yeah, I realized same while you were writing, and edited that out before you saved. Still working on developing the ability to get things right the first time.
Using your example, 1⁄10 is closer to 1⁄120 than to 1⁄2; 0.1 is far closer to 0.0083 than to 0.5.It's not obvious to me, actually!
Opposed to any of what I would call "exotic" forms in the dms tableOkay. It just makes the choice of a break point for the factor-of-60 jump more critical. If you actually want the point where x−1⁄10 = 1⁄10−x⁄60, then x = 12⁄59 = 1⁄4.91666 = 0.20338983. (And x = 2⁄9 = 1⁄4.5= 0.2222 for the jumps of 10.
The reason for the 0–30° jump is that the difference in cosine between 0° and 30° is quite small. The rate of change of circumference increases as you approach the pole (where the circumference becomes 0). Thus, it's pretty easy to interpolate.
If you divide the cosine into tenths, the corresponding angles (acos(1), acos(0.9), acos(0.8), etc.) are 0°, 25.84°, 36.87°, 45.57°, 53.13°, 60° (halfway!), 66.42°, 72.54°, 78.46°, 84.26°, 90°. The first tenth is more than 25°. The last tenth us less than 6°.
However, I had another thought. We want to encourage people to use resolution no finer than this advice. Going a bit coarser is not a problem; it's excessive precision we're warning against. Perhaps the table should be reordered to go from degrees down, and say "For objects no smaller than" size X use format Y. Same numbers, just rearranged.
Thoughts? 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 03:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
However, I had another thought.If I'm reading you correctly, this would only affect the very few border cases, at or very close to the break. Do I have that right? If so, I don't feel it's worth switching to descending size, which I think would feel less natural to the user. In the real world, there are far more ascending lists (telephone directory) than descending ones (none comes to mind at the moment). ― Mandruss ☎ 04:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
71:
Interesting trivia. The comments at the bottom of the usage example at WP:COORDPREC, permalink involve a hypothetical case, 70 km and 30°. For that case, the existing tables give d.dd°, while the new tables give d.d°. Apparently that case is in one of the error windows closed by the new tables. ― Mandruss ☎ 05:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The following tables assist in choosing a good precision for your object's latitude and size. Refer to the preceding section for more information about coordinates precision. To use these tables:
[collapsed usage example here]
|
|
― Mandruss ☎ 06:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Talk:Wurdi Youang#RfC: should the coordinates be included in the article that may be of interest to participants in this project. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 14:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware of the RfC at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Deprecate named coordinates-related infobox parameters. As a result of the changes made, some articles have been popping up at
Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags as having duplicate coordinates—mainly articles using {{
Infobox protected area}} and {{
Infobox islands}}—which I've been removing from the category by deleting the named coordinate parameters and leaving the {{coord}}
. This morning, when I did so in
Chazy Fossil Reef, instead of the location map there appeared the error message "Lua error in Module:Location_map at line 362: No value was provided for longitude". This hasn't happened before—for instance, when I did the same thing to
Calanques National Park yesterday. I've been unable to track down the source of the problem. Any help here?
Deor (
talk)
16:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
There's an interesting puzzle at List of elevation extremes by country. IP User 202.87.162.173 ( talk · contribs) listed Deep Lake, in the Vestfold Hills, as the lowest elevation in Antarctica, providing [5] as a reference. That reference is (IMO) reliable to verify that Deep Lake is at -50m elevation, but remains silent as to whether that is the lowest elevation in Antarctica. I have been unable to find any source that verifies that Deep Lake is the deepest in Antarctica, so the claim is probably original research. However, I have been unable to find a deeper verified elevation (which is weak support for the claim).
To make things more complex, various reliable sources (such as the CIA World Factbook) list the Bentley Subglacial Trench at −2,540 m (−8,330 ft) as the lowest point in Antarctica. Of course, that point is covered with thousands of meters of ice. Wikipedia consensus seems to define surface elevation above ice, rather than below. This seems to match the commonly-held definition of elevation.
What to do? I am stymied. Comments welcome at Talk:List of elevation extremes by country. — hike395 ( talk) 03:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I have been working on converting Infobox templates as part of
Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes. I have come across a technical issue that I need help with. A couple of infoboxes, such as
Template:Infobox Municipality PT, test the value of |longd=
(longitude degrees) in order to decide which map to display in the infobox. It's very clever, but I haven't figured out how to replicate it using {{
Coord}}. Here's a simplified version of the current code:
| pushpin_map = {{#if: {{{longd|}}} | {{#ifexpr: {{{longd}}} > -10 | Portugal | {{#ifexpr: {{{longd}}} < -24 | Portugal Azores | Portugal Madeira }} }} }}
My question is: Assuming that we deprecate and remove the latd/longd parameters and replace them with the {{ Coord}} template, how do I implement this test in the infobox? Any links, ideas, or tips are appreciated. I poked through the archives for this talk page, but it's a tricky thing to search for. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
{{Coord|57|18|22|N|4|27|32|E}}
. It produces a string which includes <span class="geo">57.30611; 4.45889</span>
. The second number can be captured with {{#invoke:String|match|s={{{coordinates}}}|pattern=<span class="geo">.-; (.-)</span>}}
Test output: 4.45889. I haven't examined whether all {{
coord}} calls with valid parameters will output the expected string. If we use this in templates then we should make a separate template like {{
extract longd}} so the code can be adapted in a single place.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
12:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
{{#invoke:coordinates|coord2text|{{Coord|57|18|22|N|4|27|32|E}}|lat}}
and {{#invoke:coordinates|coord2text|{{Coord|57|18|22|N|4|27|32|E}}|long}}
.
Frietjes (
talk)
15:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
coord2text
and coordinsert
. I would think that they place to document these would be in the documentation for
Module:Coordinates, perhaps with a pointer from
Template:coord?
Frietjes (
talk)
14:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Template:Infobox map has been
nominated for merging with
Template:Location map. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —
hike395 (
talk)
03:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
This article about using machine learning to geocode photographs is fascinating. -- The Anome ( talk) 15:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
We are now up to 996,644 geocoded articles. Within the next few months, we will reach the point where [en:] Wikipedia has 1,000,000 geocoded articles. We should start thinking about how we can use this milestone event to publicize this project, with the goal of recruiting new contributors and securing and improving collaboration with other projects. -- The Anome ( talk) 10:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
SELECT page_title, gc_lat, gc_lon, gc_globe, gc_type, gc_region, gc_primary
FROM u2815__p.coord_enwiki
JOIN page ON page_id=gc_from AND page_namespace=0
LEFT JOIN categorylinks ON cl_from=gc_from
AND cl_to IN ("Coordinates_on_Wikidata", "Coordinates_not_on_Wikidata")
WHERE cl_from IS NULL AND gc_globe='' /* Earth */
LIMIT 100;
I've added several to domains to the To Do list that we need to cull from the External links section. I've already done several thousand of the various Microsoft properties which already have coordinates. — Dispenser 19:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I have just changed jobs and being a keen editor used "special:near" to see what articles were around me. I noticed that a number of articles were are being missed despite containing coordinates, is there a role for a debugging tool to catch these and figure out the issues?
Back ache ( talk) 18:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I placed a citation needed Minute and second of arc#Cartography about the precision of minutes and degrees which doesn't match the mentioned in Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Precision guidelines. Can anyone check this? ※ Sobreira ◣◥ (parlez) 09:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I've added coords to the table in California Historical Landmarks in Fresno County, California for the site of the first junior college, but it won't appear in the map all coordinates using google. What have I done wrong? I have waited as suggested. Trilotat ( talk) 19:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Right now we have {{
Location map Japan}}
, which can be called in infoboxes by entering "Japan" as the map name. This produces the top map to the right. It can not be used for smaller locations such as
Iwo Jima, however. For that, we would need to use the bottom map to the right. Can someone make a new {{
Location map Japan full}}
(or whatever it should be named) so we can have a location map showing all of Japan? I would do it, but I don't understand the equations at the top of the templates. ···
日本穣 ·
投稿 ·
Talk to Nihonjoe ·
Join WP Japan!
23:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
An IP editor is making disruptive edits to Geographic coordinate system, making many ungrammatical edits. I urge editors to monitor this article. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox mountain#Rounding elevation: should we follow sources for rounding of elevation, or is rounding covered by the MoS? Feel free to join the discussion. — hike395 ( talk) 21:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Is "Do not add coordinates to the following types of articles: [...] Sports teams (add to the stadium article instead)" a Wikipedia policy, or just advice for members of this wikiproject? If the former, should templates like infobox football club have their "coordinates=" field removed? -- Gapfall ( talk) 17:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps a silly question, but should they, if they have an unambiguous real-world location within the fiction? This project page doesn't seem to say anything either way. (Digging around for an example, The 4400 Center has a street address and is represented on the TV show by the building which is at that location.) -- Gapfall ( talk) 09:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Greetings, Today I added the WP Semi-active notice to the project page. If enough editors feel this is not warranted, then it is okay with me to remove the tag. Any discussion is welcome. Regards, — JoeHebda • ( talk) 18:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I was wondering if there was a need or desire for a bot that rounds overprecise 8 or 7 digit coordinates down to 6, because there's a huge backlog of these (>11k), and I feel like writing a bot. While working on this WikiProject I have seen that other bots have contributed to this project, but I'm not sure if there's a list of them somewhere or an existing bot or tool I could run a batch job on. And if this discussion is better suited for a different location, I would be happy to move it. Brubsby ( talk) 21:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the harmfulness of needlessly precise coordinates needs to be judged differently for geographic coordinates than for most other numbers. If I write the equatorial radius of Pluto is 1,195,634 m, that is false precision, because according to page K7 in the Astronomical Almanac for the Year 2017 the value is 1,195 ± 5 km. I'm making up digits that no one actually knows. But if I give a geographic position, it's probably understood that I'm giving a point that falls within the associated feature. If I increase the precision, the point still falls within the feature, so it's still true (although not elegant).
Also keep in mind that the bot can't make the value elegant. An elegant value would be just precise enough to guarantee the point falls within the feature. That's way beyond the ability of the bot. The bot can only make many values less-inelegant, at the risk of throwing away meaningful precision. Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi all, I've gathered some data with the help of User:Dispenser, and have taken a random sample from all of the likely candidates for this bot. I'll describe my methodology a little, and report my findings.
Methodology
One of the easiest paths to gathering the necessary data was by looking at all external links to geohack, and then applying successive filters to get down to only the cases I am intending to change (overprecise dec coordinates). The filters I used were these:
The first three filters applied gave me a total count of 84,922 links, but this includes all links from every namespace (I believe). And I do not yet have an official count of all cases just in article space, but glupt should be a strong estimate.
Classification | Total | Notes | Example | Proposed action |
---|---|---|---|---|
overprec dec | 50 | Standard case where human editor simply over-specifies the precision | Adavi, Maharashtra | round |
overprec GNIS | 3 | Like the standard case, but where there's a GNIS reference that has usually 7 decimals of precision, not sure what to do about these | Antelope Valley (Nevada) | unsure |
overprec dec with format=dms | 16 | These are like the first case, but with format=dms, they appear nicely in the article due to this, but the geohack link is still overprecise. In addition, rounding these down would not altar the appearance of the links in the article at all, as 6 decimal places of precision is more than format=dms shows. | Hill Close Gardens, Warwick | round |
overprec dec on lat/lon template (presented as dms) | 27 | These require more investigation I believe, as they're using lat/lon in a template instead of a {{ coord}}. These cases are also somewhat oversampled, because my random distribution weights every link instead of every page with a link. And these pages had a lot of imported coordinates. | Grade II* listed buildings in Anglesey | ignore/address separately |
transcluded from wikidata | 1 | Out of scope for this bot. If this bot is successful, running a similar bot on wikidata might be a good future task. | Itsukushima Shrine | ignore |
articles I wouldn't touch | 1 | Articles that, as a human editor, I'm not sure if they should be this precise or not. The canonical "put on the blacklist" articles | List of WAAS reference stations | blacklist |
rounding error dec | 1 | Articles that have floating point errors from previous bots and should be rounded down | Meșeni | round |
transcluded from another list | 1 | This will be ignored by the bot, simply included because I was not looking at wikisource directly | List of National Monuments in Connacht | ignore |
Open Questions
So, after conducting this research I'm still confident in my proposal for this bot, but would like to request comments from the community.
Thanks! Brubsby ( talk) 17:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Is there any consensus as to whether {{coord|12|3|45|N|67|8|9|W}} or {{coord|12|03|45|N|67|08|09|W}} is preferable? By analogy with HH:MM:SS, I've been using leading zeroes on single-digit degrees and seconds, but I see many examples that don't. — Steve Summit ( talk) 02:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm proposing to standardise the map parameter names in infoboxes; please see, and comment at, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Standardising map parameters in infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm mulling the idea of removing the 0° columns from the tables at WP:COORDPREC, but I wanted to seek some comments first. A close look at the tables reveals that this change would affect only one narrow set of cases: DMS format coordinates, object size ~300km-750km, latitude 0°-15°. The table currently suggests d° m' for those cases and that would become d°. So I wonder whether the 0° columns earn their keep. While removing the 0° column from the decimal-format table alone would have no effect at all, I'd prefer to keep the table formats consistent with each other. ― Mandruss ☎ 13:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I think you guys might be being overprecise by several orders of magnitude. I have never needed to go more precise than 0.5" to mark even such objects as statues. I was told at here at WP:Geographical_coordinates many years ago to stick to arcseconds or to dd.dddd° (four digits) for the most precision one would ever need. Abductive ( reasoning) 05:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for 180th meridian to be moved to Antimeridian. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 20:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
How do I attach more than one set of coordinates to an article? Several schools for example have multiple campuses and I want to add the data for all campuses.
Thanks WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
{{
Coord}}
with |display=inline
(that's the default, so you can alternatively omit the |display=
parameter).
Pioneer Library System shows one method using a table.
Norman, Oklahoma#Geography includes coordinates within the text. Optionally, you can include a {{
GeoGroup}}
in "External links" to allow display of all the article's coordinates on one map; see
Pioneer Library System#External links. ―
Mandruss
☎
04:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
There is a proposal to merge Vertical metre into Metres above sea level. Please feel free to join in the discussion at Talk:Metres above sea level#Vertical metre merge. — hike395 ( talk) 13:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I made some changes to the GeoGroup template. See discussion on template talk page - Samuel Wiki ( talk) 07:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The Geohack link arrived at by clicking on the coordinates on the Whitlingham article has 'Wikimedia maps' on the RHS rather than 'Great Britain', I have noticed that the region parameter in the panel at the top is missing, it should be 'GB', any ideas ? Thanks GrahamHardy ( talk) 09:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)