Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Archive 12

message: I just did a very quick survey, by clicking on "random page" a few times -- of the 86 pages I looked at, before getting down to the bottom of the page in my notebook:
* 71 were not candidates for geolocation
* 7 were candidates for geolocation, properly categorized, but not geotagged
* 8 were both categorized and correctly tagged with their geolocation
Applying the ratios above to the roughly 1.7m article pages gives an estimate of about 150,000 for the number of tagged pages, which is reasonably close to the figures in the last Kolossus dump, and also suggests (on a rather small sample, with wide error bars) that roughly half of the articles needing tagging so far have been tagged. -- The Anome 23:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A quick survey of tagging progress 

message: It looks as though articles that use  and  now produce incompatible overlapping of the title coordinates. I'm not sure how long this has been happening, as I rarely even notice the title coordinates. But I did notice when someone started removing the geolinks templates from articles because of the incompatible duplication. For example, see Port Austin, Michigan. Seems that the geolinks uses decimal coordinates while coor title dms does not. I seem to recall that the geolinks templates did not previously add the coordinates into the title--though I could be mistaken--like I say, I rarely even notice the title coordinates. Personally, while I have no objection to the title coordinates, I find the geolinks presentation much more user-friendly. older ≠ wiser 12:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see , which is intended to replace all of the coor template-family. geolinks templates should incorporate coord and this has been raised with the editor who is, I believe, responsible for geolinks. Andy Mabbett 16:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication of title coordinates 

message: does the parameter globe work? I try:
{{Coor d|57.3|S|175.2S|E|globe:Moon}}

but it's still on earth. --WISo 09:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globe parameter 

message: I recently added some coordinates to Tinsley Viaduct. My work was reverted and there's been some, er, interesting discussion which folks here might want to read. Andy Mabbett 13:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bit more heat than light in that discussion, I think, not to mention violations of WP:KETTLE.  I called (above) for a project consensus on which articles needed coordinates and which didn't.  Clearly there's a related question of whether articles need more than one set, and if so, how many, and a perhaps more fundamental question of how coordinates are to be presented.  I really, really, do not think I should be the one who suggests what the consensus should be - that should done by someone committed to the project, and I'd prefer to stay outside the project making constructive criticism.  FWIW, I'm sure there are articles that unquestionably need to have more than one set, and some already do (e.g. Channel Tunnel).  But care should be taken to keep the article space taken up by the coordinates in proportion to their importance.  A list of coordinates the full width of the page is likely to be overkill in most cases. Just asking, but in the case where more than one set are needed, could they be presented by, say, mouse rollover tooltips on a map rather than bald textual statements in the main body? Philip Trueman 13:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "where more than one set are needed, could they be presented by, say, mouse rollover tooltips on a map" -  that fails to meet basic accessibility criteria. How does a mouse rollover work for someone using a keyboard, or a touch-screen PDA? Andy Mabbett 14:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tinsley Viaduct 

message: Further to the above, I'd suggest that, for any linear structure (viaduct, canal, river, railway, wall (e.g. Hadrain's), motorway, etc.) then there are several significant coordinates - each end, the mid-point (for shorter structures, to give a location for the article as a whole: good for Tinsley Viaduct, not good for the M1), and any notable features, crossings or junctions. What constitutes "notable" will depend on the scale. Andy Mabbett 14:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a motorway, you'd do it in the list of junctions. --NE2 15:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've been looking at the tables on a few motorway pages, recently, to see if I could find a way to integrate coordinates without spoiling the presentation. I'd like to include the hCard microformat at the same time (see Crossings of the River Severn  for examples). Any ideas? Andy Mabbett 15:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd strongly support any way of getting linear coordinate info into articles. For the purpose of creating a layer on a map this information would be invaluable. A mere list of junctions (in the M1 example) on the other hand would merely clutter the map. --Dschwen 17:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I follow you - why would it "clutter up the map"? Andy Mabbett 17:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A slew of map markers of junctions would not be a ideal way of showing the Motorway on a map. They wouldn't standout from other markers and they would all point to the same article. It would be like having a connect the dots. With linear coordinate data I could draw a line on the map much more adequately visualizing the Motorway. --Dschwen 17:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're concerned about having multiple markers for one article, than you should only include those  with the attribute "display=title" (which may also be "display=inline,title" or "display=title,inline") which implies that the coordinates relate to the whole article, not merely one of may points referred to in it. Andy Mabbett 18:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. Sure, but that still wouldn't give me polygon data to plot on the map. --Dschwen 18:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sympathise, but I can't see that we'll ever get to the point where WP has GIS data for roads and the like. Perhaps Wikimapia has something you could use?  Andy Mabbett 18:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikimapia is not what I'm aiming for. Wikimapia is not looking for encyclopedic relevance. And GoogleMaps is fine as a contemporary background, but I could also imagine generating historic map layers to illustrate wikipedia articles. It just seems as a logigal next step to me to insert not only point but polygon geodata into articles where it is appropriate.--Dschwen 18:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and one tiny detail. Wikimapia only has lots of rectangular boxes. No linear structures no other polygons at all. --Dschwen 09:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates for linear structures 

message: A potentially useful resource for articles on churches without coordinates isDove's Guide for Church Bell Ringers  This contains information including (OS) grid reference or other coordinates for all churches with 3 or more bells hung for change ringing.  The majority of these are in England, but it also includes some churches in the rest of British Isles, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Kenya, India, Pakistan, St Vincent, Grenada and Spain!  David Underdown 14:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Churches 

message: I have created a template  that will convert coordinates in decimal format to DMS format. I am not quite sure where this template can be used, but at least the functionality is available. ●DanMS • Talk 23:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, but this functionality - and much more - is already provided by . Andy Mabbett 12:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decimal-to-DMS conversion template 

message: Is there any way to link coordinates with physic / political maps?. --Mac 16:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map? 

message: Hi there.  This is probably a very stupid question, but I can't find the answer on the article or talk page.  I've just created an article on the Bermuda Atlantic Time-series Study, an oceanographic study site.  Anyway, I've included coordinates for it, but for completeness added the coordinates for a neighbouring study site.  Unfortunately, both sets of coordinates now appear overlaid at the top of the article.  I'm sure there's a simple way to stop this from happening, but am too incompetent to find it.  Any help would be very gratefully received.  Cheers, --Plumbago 09:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed that by upgrading to , which allows you to specify inline, title, or both displays. Andy Mabbett 10:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant!  Thanks very much.  --Plumbago 10:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubled-up coordinates 

message: ::Which is what it would be far more sensible to parse the microformats in the published HTML. And before you tell me again that it's "crazy" to suggest that Google download our HTML output, how on Earth do you think they index the rest of the site? Andy Mabbett 18:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Search engine spider traffic is a necessary evil, but suggesting that the traffic should be doubled is outrageous. It probably takes Google longer than the time between our database dumps to download the HTML of all our  pages, so the updates through the dumps are quicker than if they implemented the parser to use the spidered pages. And it's not just Google Earth we're interested in, but everyone should be able to use our data. To get an idea of the amount of data, all the articles compressed in the xml dump are only about 2.5 GB, while the static HTML uncompressed, as it's sent live, is about 700 GB. --Para 19:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Suggesting that the traffic should be doubled is outrageous". Who suggests that? And why don't we parse our data, and publish a list (XML, maybe, or RSS) of URLs and matching coordinates? Andy Mabbett 20:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to parse the dumps. The Germans are already doing it. And they publish the urls and co-ordinates in Google Earth. Thats what they are already doing. Now if you would like to do a similar task and publish it in a different format, then by all means feel free to do so.  Frelke 23:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoooshhhh! Andy Mabbett 23:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The smart way for this case obviously would be to use the pages they already have in their index - no extra downloading. But I guess dumpparsing retains more information, or is the type ( city(pop), mountain(height), landmark, etc. ) parameter in the microformat? --Dschwen 06:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: HTML

message: At the same time as we are thinking of reducing coordinate templates to one, others work on creating more of them, such as . What should be done to discourage this? Summary restructuring and deletion? --Para 21:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PoIgb is not a new coordinates template; it's a table template which calls  in exactly the same way you've been suggesting elsewhere. More FUD. Andy Mabbett 21:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The coordinates are given to PoIgb, and without running MediaWiki on their own a data reuser can't know that the numbers would later be given to coord. Additional data entry templates like that are exactly what we're trying to develop away from. Why can't coord be called directly in tables? --Para 21:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as happens in about half of the geo-infoboxes. Since the coordinates in PoIgb don't generally, apply to the whole article, why should parsers need to see them?  as to your last question, there are vocal opponents to such a move, for the same reasons you've opposed other templates, which do use coord as a value, in the last few days.  is the model you said you wanted, when opposing , which has coord as a value, the model you oppose. Please make up your mind what you want.  Andy Mabbett 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be up to the data providers to choose what the data reusers want to see, though inline data no doubt has lower priority. All coordinates should be entered using the same template. In this topic we have tried to find out whether it would be possible to really do that, or if infoboxes need to be exempt and have composite coordinates using some standard parameter set. The problem with hcard-geo isn't its different data entry, but the naming and syntax from another data representation layer, and the unnecessary wrapping of one template inside another, when only adding minor information that could as well be implemented in the inmost template. Table row templates seem to generally be accepted, though personally I'd prefer seeing the normal wikitable syntax, especially in this case where all the cells between rows are different and no information is repeated. The preferred data model with structured data in articles is to call the data by its name, be it a coordinate or a point of interest, but not by its possible eventual output format name. --Para 23:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "All coordinates should be entered using the same template." If you wish to implement that as policy - it certainly isn't now, nor has it ever been, in the time I've been here - then feel free to raise it in the appropriate forums. In the meantime, it's just your opinion, and as such is without merit. Andy Mabbett 20:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Geeez, what's the matter with you? Don't you realize how unproductive your rude manners are? We are all just trying to contribute to improve the geocoding on Wikipedia. You make it seem like it's you against all others... --Dschwen 08:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was perfectly polite. Please don't make false accusations. Andy Mabbett 09:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-migration 

message: :Unless anyone objects, I shall shortly update this project page, to say that people should use  in preference to coor * templates. Andy Mabbett 16:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given http://earth.google.com/userguide/v4/geoweb_faq.html (mentioned by AM elsewhere) this seems reasonable to me. -- roundhouse0 20:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating documentation 

message: A comments request a while ago invited people to participate in a discussion about inline coordinates displayed as icons instead of numbers. I think it would be better to have that discussion here. Inline coordinates are not too common now, but when we run out of articles to add title coordinates to, people will inevitably start locating smaller things mentioned within articles.
In my opinion inline coordinates make article text harder to read, and the numbers don't tell me much; I need a visualisation to make sense of the location. See Ridge Route for example of an article with many inline coordinates. There are undoubtedly people who are fluent coordinate number readers, and prefer keeping the information visible, but I suspect they are in the minority. So how about just making them less visible?
Would it be possible to have coordinates work much like references do, by having:
# Inline coordinates displayed not as such, but as a small superscript icon
# Inline coordinates create an anchor link to a table somewhere in the article (at the end, preferably, before references) using the icon as the link, possibly together with an index number
# A <coordinates/> tag at the end of the article expanding to anchors, perhaps a name given with coord (as proposed here), and the coordinates themselves.
This would still keep coordinates editable where they are first mentioned, so editors wouldn't have trouble finding them. It would follow the Wikipedia link style where linked words lead to other articles, and superscript notation right after a word lead elsewhere in the same article. The references-style table placement tag would likely need a modification for the references extension though to make it more general. Thoughts? --Para 13:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of an icon to hide the coordinates would, like one of your other suggestions, involve hidden metadata; I refer you to our previous discussion on that subject; and to our discussion as to why your proposal to add a name value to  is flawed. Andy Mabbett 16:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the proposal before commenting. I did not suggest hiding the coordinates, but placing them elsewhere in the article with a direct link between. --Para 17:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean that your three numbered items are a not alternative choices? If so, then I think your proposal would work in some cases as I suggested at Talk:Ridge_Route#move_inline_coordinates_into_table, but the suggestion was not liked there. How many pages have coordinates inline in the manner and quantity of those at Ridge Route? Andy Mabbett 17:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously the items wouldn't all work on their own, but all together, in that order of reader perception. Inline coordinates are few now, but again, as I said, they are likely to become more common once title coordinates have been added to our articles. The discussion you cite has three contributors, two of which are us, so you can hardly give any weight to that. --Para 18:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of superscripts with a <coordinates/> tag, working not unlike the  idea (which people are now accustomed to) ... very good. I think any long walk or route/road/canal might lend itself to this treatment. I think a table of co-ordinates is (or can be seen as) rather intrusive and also difficult to maintain, much as a table of refs would be. -- roundhouse0 18:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline coordinate display 

message: While looking up heights of hills & mountains, I came across a site that gives coordinates (including height) of trig stations (probably Canberra specific). area around Red Hill, Australian Capital Territory. [How] should I include this in articles? --RobBrisbane 08:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heights 

message: Just a minor formatting query: is there a generally accepted preference for where in the article the  tag should be placed? --Muchness 21:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe at the end of the article, near the external links section?  That's where categories, interlanguage links, and the like are already placed, so that makes the most sense to me.  On the other hand, for most situations you're better off just adding an infobox—it will call  automatically, and you can put a bunch of other information there too.  If you must, there are also the Geolinks templates—see here—although those seem to be deprecated in favor of infoboxes these days.  Cheers, bdesham ★ 21:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help, appreciated. --Muchness 21:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of tag 

message: There's discussion at Template talk:GeoTemplate#Redesign.3F and Template talk:GeoTemplate#GeoHack_improvements to improve the page that appears after clicking on coordinates in Wikipedia. Comments and suggestions would be welcome. If the proposed changes can be implemented, the page might finally be usable and useful enough to perhaps let the geolinks templates go. --Para 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making geographical information services better available 

message: Pages marked with  can be exported as KML (for use in Google Earth, for example) via Brian Suda's site, in this format:
:http://suda.co.uk/projects/microformats/geo/get-geo.php?type=kml&uri=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_volcanoes_in_the_United_States_of_America
The same URL can be pasted into Google Maps as a search, and will show the locations, as push-pins on a map
: Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template  was created - and promptly nominated for deletion. --Para 13:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Export points of interest as KML; see them on Google Maps 

message: I propose that we add a section to this project's guidelines, to offer advice on recording coordinates for linear features such as roads, railways, rivers, canals and trails, We could look at current best (and bad!) practice, involve he relevant WikiProjects, and take into account emerging technologies such as  and the services linked to form . We should also aim to ensure that any published examples meets current polices, (or see whether such polices are in need of revision).  Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 06:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of my pet peeves too. Geocoded linear features in articles would be very useful for generating complex locator maps. Please have a look at  this discussion and commons:Template:GeoPolygon (and the example on the template talk page). --Dschwen 09:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While Polygons and linear features are different, some of the same principles apply. I like your template (though it could be improved by also outputting Geo microformats; perhaps by usung multiple instances of  as input values), and wonder why you favour that approach there, but oppose it in , and have voted for its deletion. (Other editors might like to see pages, about linear features, using the latter, such as Manchester Ship Canal and Netherton Tunnel Branch Canal). (Folks interested in polygons might also be interested in my proposal to extend the Geo microformat to cater for boundaries.) Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 17:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time I created it I didn't know about the GEO MFs, feel free to improve it though. The idea of my template was centered around creating a query string, containing all coordinate data, which could easily be passed to an external script. I'd think that multiple instances of coord (though a nice an powerful template) would be quite clumsy for larger line features (many points). In any case the template and script thingie was created for commons as a proof of concept, and I wouldn't want tons of coordinates to clutter the article. Another idea would be using subpages to store polygon data. I don't have a silver bullet solution and I fear that introducing line features or polygon data to wikipedia will neither be easy nor doable in a short timeframe. Good luck anyhow. --Dschwen 17:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Line features have already been introduced on WP-EN; I'm seeking discussion of  how best to implement them. Thank you, though for your good wishes. While we have a disagreements over an accessibility issue, I don't think were very far apart in wanting to improve Wikipeida's use of coordinates and maps. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. Because commons:Template:GeoPolygon has one field for all coordinates )"latitude, longitude, latitude, longitude, latitude, longitude, latitude, longitude, ad infinitum) it is hard to add microformat mark-up without using a template for each coordinates pair. Could commons:Template:GeoPolygon have a separate field for each pair, with some sort of delimiter after the last one? I have no idea whether that's possible or, if it is, how to make it so. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A road is linear in character, but details are now visible with significant width.  In Google Earth one can mn seconds make a translucent orange rectangle showing the location of the fallen I-35W bridge (or enclose the whole bridge in the orange indicator).  Would such markers be useful in additions to coordinates?  (SEWilco 21:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps; but perhaps we also need to walk before we run? ;-) If I mark up the coordinates of a linear structure like a 300-mile motorway, I would include the major junctions, not each twist and turn, let alone its width. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 21:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The best description of an object is dependent upon the characteristic being described.  For a road being used for movement, the linearity is important because it is a line which connects points.  When the road crosses the Golden Gate Bridge, that bridge itself has its own characteristics of interest which may require 2-D or 3-D descriptions.  When the topic is toll roads, the pinpoint location of the toll booths along the road are of interest.  For an event such as a disastrous landslide across a road or a collapsed bridge, the location(s) of the event are of greater interest than the road itself.  The requested guideline will have to be somewhat general.  (SEWilco 16:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Using present Wikipedia technology, I suggest that the guideline recommend describing linear characteristics in the form of a table or list.  So a description of the Grand Canyon might be a west-to-east description of highlights along with their coordinates.  It would be legible to someone without special tools and each point can be described as needed.  Such information can have various markup added, particularly as Wikipedia technology changes.  (SEWilco 16:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the specific case of a wikitable which contains rows with coordinates, can microformat markers be added before and after a list of individual geotags which marks the list as being a linear object?  So a wikitable of Grand Canyon features would look to a microformat browser as being a linear geo object, by adding an appropriate marker ahead of and after the table?  (SEWilco 16:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not yet, but see geo-extension for waypoints for a proposal to enable that. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes; see the Manchester/ Netherton examples, above, plus M62 motorway#Route and Walsall Canal (the latter uses ; see also ). See also List of United Kingdom locations: Bal, which is not a linear feature, but uses additional hCard properties, in a table. (I will document the various methods, when I have time, under WP:UF) Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linear features 

message: Wikipedians have started adding coordinates to articles of deceased people, see Template talk:Infobox_Person#Resting_place. We have already discussed a similar topic with other small scale objects at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/archive011#Articles_that_do_not_need_coordinates. Usefulness, accuracy and reviewability aside, should we add another type to be used in these very small scale cases instead of landmark? It would make it easier to ignore the redundant information copied from the main article of the location, without relying on categorisation only. How about something like type:object with scale 1:500? --Para 21:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting idea.  What is the standard for "type" classifications?  And is there a distinction between a small scale resting place and Grant's Tomb, which probably is type:landmark?  (SEWilco 15:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like User:Egil (who used to run GeoHack before Magnus) just made up the type parameter at the dawn of the GEO project for this exact purpose. The whole type classification system is sort of redundant as the category tree could be walked to find what type an article represents, but that's a bit too complicated for reuse, so people have manually tagged articles with a coordinate type. I would still use categories to help assign a type to an article; articles about a location should be tagged with type:landmark or bigger, and others such as deceased people, paintings and other items that are usually not associated with coordinates, with type:object. If there's an article of the resting place, be it small or big, that would make it a notable landmark, whereas a non-notable location of the resting place mentioned in the person's article would be just an object. Thoughts? --Para 19:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New type value for small scale items 

message: Here's the new phrasing.  Which of the boxes seems best? (SEWilco 16:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amended.  Use of "/" isn't as clear as "or".  And I left it as "coordinates" because that's what numerical definitions of locations generally are called in articles.  (SEWilco 17:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I also changed the HTML to be more consistent and to not appear on the printable version.  (SEWilco 17:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the second box is best.  It's not very wide and there is no need for bold text.  (SEWilco 17:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the amendments. On further reflection, the text should not be below 90% (preferably, not below 100%) for accessibility reasons. Likewise, if it is below 100%, it should be emboldened. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Possible alternative, shorter wording: "Map or download..."; "Map or use..."; "Use..."; "See..."; or just "All coordinates"; or how about a small globe icon and "All coordinates"?  Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Removed font size specification and altered to "Find maps of..." phrasing similar to the intro of GeoTemplate.  I still prefer the 2nd box.  (SEWilco 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing the fonts; I think the second box is OK, but would still like to add a globe icon (or maybe a push-pin). "Find maps of all coordinates" could be shortened to "Map all coordinates". but neither of those expresses the facility to download or extract the coordinates. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Second set

message: :Such indicators are not needed. Wikipedia is filled with articles that in addition to the main topic of the article handle subtopics that are either a part of the topic or related to it. There has never been any need to give self-referential hints to readers that the article provides more complete information than its name might imply; the readers can see that themselves after having looked at the article for a moment. Also, there was big controversy over having coordinates in articles' titles at all when they were first introduced. Each mention of coordinates now links to a list of dozens of tools, with no other special presentation in articles. Having this kml thing in External links is questionable already, so a big box to showcase the same external links and proprietary formats in an even more visible way will most certainly not pass. --Para 07:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Having this kml thing in External links is questionable already..." Others seem to think not; your motion to delete the template having been soundly defeated; and you have yet to provide an form of viable alternative. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you say no indicator is needed, please show me where to click in List of sequoia groves to view all the coordinates in the article.  When I click on a single coordinate I get a GeoTemplate list, which only lets me see that one point which I selected.  I think an indicator is needed of where I should click to view all the coordinates.  (SEWilco 18:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The interface in Wikipedia to have more information of coordinates is to click on any of them and choose a service of your preference. Indicators aren't used for any other similar minor details in articles, and the variety of available services for these minor details doesn't make them any more special. Adding the KML service links to the standard list is unfortunately not possible yet, as a single [personal attack removed] keeps blocking the required coord|name= modification by making it seem to admins as if discussion was still going on or that his objections were worth noting. Still, the link to the services won't be some separate and different indicator of an available service type, but the same Wikipedia coordinates interface everyone knows already. --Para 19:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The coord|name= modification only affects the labeling of the points, not their being exported as a collection of points.  (SEWilco 19:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a technicality, but nothing in Wikipedia exports a collection of points; the generated links only give the name of the containing article to the service, which in turn is used to retrieve the page and its coordinates. If you look at the proposed coord modification, that's what it does in addition to the labeling. --Para 19:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ra%27s+test Your sandbox test link only produces a GeoHack page with links to show individual points.  Your proposed change to coord does not provide access to the collection of coordinates on a page.  However, I think your proposed change does label individual points for export tools.  (SEWilco 20:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are looking at a link from months ago, whereas kmlexport and its demonstration are much newer. See my comment on Template_talk:Coord with a proper link to the GeoHack sandbox where the link works perfectly. How in your opinion does it not provide access to a collection of coordinates? --Para 00:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That whole page is about a single location, stated in the intro (in this example) as "-54.25°, -36.75°"; yet you suddenly offer the reader a link to a series of coordinates with no apparent relation to that point. As pointed out to you many times recently, by several people, it's ludicrous to do so. Your silly change to the introductory wording of that page, making it read "You may be able to find maps and data about the location(s) on Earth..." instead of 's "You may be able to find maps and data about the location..." are a rather facile attempt to overcome this incompatibility; but do at least give some indication that you are aware of the issue, much though you try to deny it. Quite clearly, only one location has the coordinates "-54.25°, -36.75°". It's a singularity. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 08:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  That link to the GeoHack sandbox seems OK, if  link goes to that section of GeoHack so the relevant section is being referenced.  What is kmlexport and where is it described?  Do you mean MW:Extension:KML Export has been enabled, so  should refer to that special page?  (SEWilco 15:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary; that page is for single waypoints. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Says who? It's not written in stone, you know. Two different infrastructures for such closely related things (coordinates, whether it's one or many) doesn't make much sense. I'd rather expand the geohack on the toolserver instead of introducing a completely new system. --Dschwen 16:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Says all the evidence cited in regard to this issue over the last few weeks; and many of the people speaking - successfully - against the deletion of  . Single waypoints and collections of multiple waypoints are sufficiently different that it makes sense to have different pages for tools displaying them. No new "system" is needed; just a new template-page, if and when the number of such services makes one appropriate. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 17:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, instead of "That link" I should have provided that link to the GeoTemplate sandbox example for multiple coordinates.  Ir order to support more tools, they have to be moved out of sight so the notice in the article doesn't grow to many lines.  That way  can emit a small notice for however many coordinate collection tools appear, and with two clicks any of them can be accessed.  If the link goes to that section for multiple coordinates then one won't have to hunt for them.  Which tool produces the KML file is irrelevant to the reader, as long as it works.  (SEWilco 02:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Kmlexport is the toolserver tool I wrote to improve the one that was previously used on . It's described on the documentation page of the template, with better description pending proper implementation of coordinate annotation on Wikipedia. I wasn't aware a MediaWiki extension had been written as well to export kml, and nobody pointed it out in the deletion discussion. Is there a reason why it's not installed on Wikipedia? Exporting parts of articles would fit best in the user interface toolbox instead of inside articles. --Para 17:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kmlexport is only partially described on 's /doc page; and I still await your full reply to my question about its inputs; a question put to you both there are and elsewhere. coordinates on Wikipedia can already be fully annotated, as shown when exporting KML files suing the previous tool, links to which you removed. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 17:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Clicking on a single coordinates link , only to be given a choice of seeing a service relating to those coordinates, or a range of coordinates, is counter-intuitive; and will put an extra layer in the way of people wanting the former. Indicators aren't used for "any other similar minor (sic) details in articles", because there are no comparable series details (feel free to provide an example if you disagree. Your ad hominem abuse is outrageous and unacceptable. Your coord|name= proposal remains broken, and using it as you propose would not resolve the aforesaid issue. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of topic from style to need 

message: Shall we switch  to the following:
:http://www.nsesoftware.nl/wiki/maps.asp?src=params=
It's used by the Dutch Wikipedia.  -- User:Docu
Besides those listed on :nl:Sjabloon:MapsServer, an alternative would be the one of the GeoTemplate sandbox at:
:http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dispenser/maps.php?params=
As the job queue (at Special:Statistics#Site_statistics) is already quite long (2,507,564), editing  may not be a good idea for now. The WikiMiniAtlas still works btw. -- User:Docu
:This is a good reminder that core functionality such as coordinate links in a prominent place at the top of articles should not rely on the toolserver or any other single server for that matter, but be run on the same servers Wikipedia itself is. What can be done to make that happen? --Para 00:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/geo/geohack.php down 

message: Thanks to all helpers! Now we are supporting over 200.000 articles in Wikipedia-World.
New is the support of thumbnails-previews in Google Earth, see  Link or Screenshot. Unfortunally we can't use images from english Wikipedia, the reason is the "fairuse" licences of some pictures. An other new feature is the possibility to show only articles without a photo  (Link), so you have a chance to plan your next photo-safari in your surrounding area. 
--Greetings from Germany and sorry for my bad english. :de:Benutzer:Kolossos --12:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job! For a more accurate photo safari, free geocoded images from Commons are also available (as opposed to images used in geocoded articles), on Commons:WikiMiniAtlas or the Commons Google Earth layer, but the amount isn't even close to Wikipedia-World yet. You can help on Wikipedia by using the Maybe-Checker, or on Commons by geocoding any good image. --Para 19:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News from Wikipedia-World 

message: See User:The Anome/Possible manually-generated geodata errors for a subset of entries from User:The Anome/Geodata error triage that have been flagged as errors by the KML user community (via the Google Earth Data Problems Compendium page), but have never (as far as my records show) been edited by the Anomebot. 
Some of these will already have been fixed, but they should all be checked by hand just in case.
In the meantime, I have been working on further triaging and fixing of the entries in User:The Anome/Possible bot-generated geodata errors, of which I have currently fixed about 80%. -- The Anome 10:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible manual geodata errors 

message: A new template, , now provides a way of marking pages as having possibly erroneous geodata. Its only effect is to add pages to :Category:Pages requiring geodata verification, and to provide a place for putting hint information in its "was" and "suggest" parameters -- it does not make any visible change to the page content. 
The intent of this tag is to call for manual supervision. Bot edits should only be made to fix pages listed with this tag if they are very low risk edits, with some form of verification available from an independent data source. I've now tagged all the pages reported as dubious by the Google Earth users' group that I have not personally fixed, either with bot edits, or manually. 
Most/many of these are now fixed, but this is a trial run for this mechanism: please remove the tag from pages which can be verified as already correct or have already been fixed, or correct the coordinates if they are incorrect. 
This tag is intended to be bot-friendly, and will be integrated into the Anomebot system soon. -- The Anome 09:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good to have a reason or source for the doubt mentioned in the template, with a date of the comparison included. When the bot has a suggestion already, it would also be good if it compared that against the current coordinates. Cairns Central for example was tagged with this template suggesting a fix of coordinates that had been done two months earlier already. --Para 14:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template: {{tl|geodata-check}} 

message: The experimental template  is intended to be used to flag pages that should have geodata, but are not yet tagged with any of the coordinates templates. Unlike the now-deprecated  tag, it is intended to be placed in the article body: it does make any visible change to the article, other than adding it to a category. This tag is intended to be bot-friendly, and will be integrated into the Anomebot system soon. -- The Anome 10:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when was LocateMe, or other templates in that family, deprecated? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 11:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea behind this tag is to be discreet, and not to bother regular readers with large banners or boxes in the article. People didn't like  being stuck in the article for this reason, so  got chopped out of a large number of articles, and put on the talk page instead. In my opinion, putting maintenance tags on talk pages adds an extra level of complexity which I'd rather avoid unless strictly necessary. If we want to put a page in a category, we should put the page into the category. It's easier for bots, and easier for people. -- The Anome 11:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Categories should be on articles not talk pages. Having an additional locateme banner on the talk page itself wouldn't be bad, however. --Gmaxwell 20:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There's no reason (other than the dogged insistence of one editor) not to have a discrete template like  on articles; it's no different, to, say,  or . Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  The obvious difference is that  and {[tl|Expand list}} are referring to visible things which are already in the article.  They're asking for improvements to article text.  Asking for the addition of something which is not in the text is somewhat different, but for a location-oriented article there is an implied location in the article.  This difference should be emphasized in the usage instructions.  For non-location-oriented articles the requests for additions should be in the Talk page.  (SEWilco 21:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The above phrasing "it does make any visible change to the article, other than" seems contradictory.  Does it need correction?  (SEWilco 20:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template: {{tl|geodata-request}} 

message: There is a request for comment at Template_talk:Coord#Request for Comment to annotate coordinates on Wikipedia for use as a title in map services and microformat readers. As it's related to this wikiproject, opinions would be appreciated. --Para 10:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The RfC has concluded and "|name=" has been added to .  (SEWilco 15:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coord RfC 

message: I found another use within Wikipedia for the geographical coordinate tools.  In pages such as Wikipedia:Requested pictures, adding geographical coordinates makes it easier to see if requested items are near you.  In the Talk page there someone has inquired about mapping members of a "need" Category, but that's beyond the ability of the present tool.  (SEWilco 17:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, I extended the tool. It uses the database to find category contents and the rarely updated dumps to find the coordinates of the articles. Now what people have to decide is how to put the link on category pages, or if it's sufficient to just mention the tool somewhere and have people copy and paste category names to it. GeoHack has the link already, but most category pages don't have coordinates and putting a dummy one on them wouldn't make much sense. This is the first time I think using a template like  would actually be justified. --Para 23:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia use of coord 

message: As I'm relatively new to this project, I'd like to know the progress on this project's goals. It doesn't really seem like  is the completely accepted template. My idea would be to show the most used links when you click the coordinates. There would be a little box pops up below them and shows links to them. You wouldn't have to leave the page. There would be a link to show all the links on a different page. Also, when will there be an option in your preferences to select between the decimal and dms form of showing coordinates? Psychless 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "most used"?  Coordinates for which people use map tools?  Some map tools show all the coordinates on a page so the individual coordinates are never clicked on.  And for what encyclopedia use is it helpful to know which locations are clicked on?  (SEWilco 05:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstood me. When I said "the most used links", I meant the links that are generated by the Geolinks templates. Psychless 22:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What meaning of "used" are you using?  (SEWilco 04:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Are you asking for information to appear in encyclopedia pages about "used" links, or were you asking about how many times each template is being used?  (SEWilco 16:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me rephrase my idea. Clicking the coordinates takes you to the geohack page which has links to many websites that will give you a map, satellite image, etc. of the place you were reading about. If you use one of the Geolinks templates it gives you links to Google Maps, Map Quest, etc. Most people use those websites for maps and satellite images. With my proposal, the links generated by the geolink template would be in the box. There would be a link that would take you to the geohack server that shows the full list of links. That way, it would be easier to find the link you want without wading through 100 links. It also eliminates the necessity of using  or equivalent and geolinks. You would just need to use coord. Psychless 22:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote such a script on Commons once, to add the links to the coordinates box used there: commons:MediaWiki:Geolinks-US-hoodscale.js (for example from this to this). It's opt-in though, but since the WikiMiniAtlas already hooks on coordinate links, we could generalise that and make the Javascript do more. It could for example fetch a heavily cached and pre-parsed version of Template:GeoTemplate. --Para 19:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress on standardization and other goals? 

message: I think that WP:GEO should have a UserBox. I have no clue how to make one, so if someone else could it would be wonderful. --Nick4404 02:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UserBox 

message: I've now written some auditing tools for templates, and have been running them on the most recent en: dump. The first result of this process is User:The Anome/Infobox audit, which tries to spot plausible uses of geodata-related parameters in Wikipedia templates, other than those using the standard coordinate templates. 
Clearly there is a lot of standardization work to be done. -- The Anome 22:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox audit 

message: Should the  family be mentioned on the project page?  I haven't found where they are all described.  And the template Talk page mentions a box conversion tool which may be of interest.  (SEWilco 21:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geobox mention? 

message: How come the link at the top is no longer one of a satellite image provided by Google Earth like it used to be?  Wikipediarules2221 20:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the top of what page?  (SEWilco 21:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Earth 

message: A  question appeared in Village Pump:   (SEWilco 17:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geobox question in VP 

message: Here's an interesting bug. Go to Shillong, and take a look at the locator dot on the map in the infobox. Now pop up the WikiMiniAtlas from the title line globe -- even though the WikiMiniAtlas now covers the infobox, the infobox's locator dot remains visible over the WikiMiniAtlas, complete with a popup-on-hover title of "Location of Shillong". This is confusing, and might well lead some readers to mistake the (completely arbitrary) location of the locator dot on the WikiMiniAtlas map for the actual location of Shillong.  In the case of Shillong, this is particularly misleading, because the label link for the Shillong article does not appear on the WikiMiniAtlas as the default zoom, and the infobox locator dot is more salient than the translucent red splodge used as default locator by the WikiMiniAtlas. 
This can also be seen in other suitably-aligned instances of : for example, see Babina and Jaipur. (Browser info: Firefox 2.0.0.8 running on Debian Etch.)
I don't know if this is specific to , or a symptom of a more widespread bug with locator maps in general: the templates used within that infobox are so intricately nested that I'll have to leave this to someone more expert with debugging WP templates. -- The Anome 09:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably someone just cranked up the z-index of the infobox-locator-point unreasonably high (z-index inflation!). That should be corrected in th elocatormap/infobox source. The WikiMiniAtlas uses a z-index of 10 or 20 I think, and there is no reason for a locator point to have a z-index above let's say three. --Dschwen 14:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh geez, that was exactly it. The infobox used a z-index of 200! I set it to 2 (and 3 for the dot) and it still works fine. Plus the WMA related bug is gone. --Dschwen 14:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug report: WikiMiniAtlas/infobox interaction 

message: I created Template:WPcoord, rephrase it as appropriate.  I avoided WPgeo due to similarity to the Geology project.  (SEWilco 15:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WPcoord 

message: I think Template:Geolocation was unused and is now orphaned and abandoned.  Should it be nominated for deletion?  (SEWilco 15:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've nominated it for deletion. -- The Anome 11:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Geolocation abandoned 

message: Is there any way of tagging an article with coodinates for groups, linear objects or area objects?
E.g:
* A group of coordinates that make up a set - eg Colleges of the University of Cambridge, List of London Underground stations
* Course of a river/road/railway etc
* Outline of a lake, country, state, etc
Perhaps these could be investigated for future inclusion? --Ozhiker 19:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed on the german project, on [[:commons:commons:Geocoding], and on Template:coord before. I'm all for it.... --Dschwen 15:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates for Group, Linear and Area items 

message: Someone notes in VP  that title coords have moved to a bad place.  The reference to Jimbo implies that the reader has the normal fundraising banner visible and a browser window which is 800 pixels wide (a common width).  Even without the fundraising banner, the present location above the line puts the coordinates in conflict with article titles.  The location below the line was better due to the shorter and smaller text ("From Wikipedia,...") on the left side of the page.  I think this same issue is in a template Talk archive, I'm sure I've seen it before.  (SEWilco 14:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see.  The CSS is using absolute positioning of the coordinates.  So when the fundraising banner is present, what is on the left depends upon whether the banner is large or small.  When the fundraising banner vanishes the header will get smaller and the coordinates will again be below the header horizontal line.  (SEWilco 20:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coord loc on VP 

message: Gentlemen, you lack the following templates:
The user sees 
and when they click, it's just as if
they clicked . I.e., a
way to set display precision.
The user sees GREAT LOCATION and when they click, it's just as if
they clicked . I.e., a
way to set display title.
Jidanni 01:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For precision see WP:GEO#Precision. Otherwise, shouldn't all coordinates be shown as such? If not, which type of coordinate use needs a more compact presentation? What would be the rule or guideline for the formatting, so that it's not up to single editors? What about printed articles; would the coordinate information just be excluded? If it's that insignificant, should it really be included at all? See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/archive012#Inline coordinate display and the linked previous discussions. --Para 15:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template lacks 

message: It looks like GeoHack isn't passing type/scale scaling information to the Google Earth exporting tool.  GE keeps presenting a view from the default altitude.  (SEWilco (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two Google Earth links on that page. The first one is from :de:User:Kolossos and doesn't support the scale parameter, so it always uses the tool's default altitude. He has commented before that scale makes no sense when used with a varying amount of pixels, and that the German Wikipedia currently has a mix of scale parameters and dim parameters (where dim is the dimension or diameter of the object in metres). This confusion is probably why the tool doesn't support any scale at all. The second tool a few rows below is mine, and estimates an altitude from the GeoHack scale, while also returning KML links to other resources. The additional links could be a reason enough for people to keep using the first tool instead. --Para (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll compare the two URLs when I get past "Unable to connect to the server at tools.wikimedia.de."  (SEWilco (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a scheduled network downtime announced for tuesday morning on the ts mailinglist. This is probably it. --Dschwen 13:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  You're right, the first Google Earth link doesn't know about scaling.  (SEWilco (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coord/GeoHack scale 

message: Hi. I'm not sure if that's the right place to ask for help but if anyone here can do the thing with making parts of maps clickable? (like in the first map of the article US State) I'd like the map in the article Constantine Province clickable, with the articles (shown in the section "Adminsitrative divisions") clickable as in the map. Thanks in advance!--escondites 15:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone help me? 

message: Not long ago someone pointed out that some of the maps being generated by Wikipedia-linked mapping tools could be usable in Wikipedia articles.  Issues have arisen in Template talk:Infobox UK place where a map with a red dot marking a location would be helpful.  That template is using existing tools, but are there better tools?  Does the not-supported-in-en:Wikipedia <geo> extension have this ability?  Are there existing free map tools which could be used to create locator maps?  Generating maps on demand might have problems; might a tool/bot be able to create maps into Commons (in a reserved namespace perhaps?) which could be used in articles?  (SEWilco 16:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the toolserver already have a map generator with country outlines, whose maps could be placed under a Commons-compatible license?  That would be sufficient for some locator maps.  (SEWilco 19:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that "Red dot" location maps are already available for many countries at .  These can also be called via  and its derivatives. Jheald (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free maps tool for article maps? 

message: Anybody know the easiest way to geotag photos in Linux (preferably drag and drop on a map instead of manually adding coords). In Windows, I love Picasa+Google Earth, but the Linux version of Picasa doesn't seem to have this feature. --Padraic 16:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a Wikipedia tool for Google Earth which shows the current location.  Maybe there is a similar tool which shows a text balloon with whatever text has to be pasted in a photo tool...or provides a geotagging URL for Picasa.  (SEWilco 06:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Or I can write a similar tool, if there is some sort of URL or text which the server could emit which would be useful in geotagging.  I'm not familiar with the Picasa interface, but I think I saw some sort of Picasa web service so can geotagging be done through their web service?  (SEWilco 04:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I just noticed that there is an addon for digiKam.   (SEWilco (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tip - I will have to try out the digiKam addon. Too bad I can't get Google Earth working in Ubuntu anymore! --Padraic 21:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Linux GE needs OpenGL and there is no version for 64-bit Linux.  (SEWilco (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geotagging software for Linux? 

message: Here is a list of the (approximate) current usage of geodata templates, and some recommendations for standarization. (I've already removed a number of other templates which either had very low usage levels, or were caused by typos.)
Template	Number of matches	Suggested action
        	327              	upgrade to  now
        	8                	upgrade to  ASAP, then delete template upgrade direct use in articles to , no action with template use
        	346              	nothing as yet
        	885              	nothing as yet
        	1275             	nothing as yet
        	1                	in only 1 article: fixed
        	9152             	nothing as yet
        	32               	used in only 3 articles; upgrade to  ASAP, then delete template
        	18718            	nothing as yet
        	12               	used in only 2 articles; upgrade to  ASAP, then delete template
        	58874            	nothing as yet
        	1                	in only 1 article: fixed
        	8999             	nothing as yet
        	39046            	nothing as yet
        	25701            	nothing as yet
        	2281             	upgrade to  now
        	33820            	none
        	10               	no actual geodata uses remain: delete template redirect now
-- The Anome 15:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the above from list format to a sortable table.  (SEWilco 16:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The suggested actions sound like good ideas.  Replace those little-used variants.  (SEWilco 00:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How updated is this? S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s (Talk to Me) 20:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currently used templates 

message: is producing the error:
:Coordinates: ERROR in  invocation. Please see Template:Coord for usage. Arguments supplied as: <snip>
Would someone who knows please fix it. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --Para (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geolinks-UK-buildingscale borked 

message: The above proposed one-liner "*Maps and photos of  at " is text which looks awkward in a printed page and doesn't tell the reader CLICK ON THE COORDINATES FOR MAPS.  "Maps and photos of Washington Monument at (some numbers)"?  Suggestions for phrasing?  (SEWilco 15:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment I think you are not getting any feed back on this because it is confusing. Can you set up some "live" examples so we can better see what these will look like? Katr67 03:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: For that matter, if we ignore the implied meaning of the hyperlinks we end up with phrases which are not grammatically correct: Maps and photos of Baltimore, Maryland at 39°17′11″N 76°36′54″W.  What makes sense is the simple statement of fact: Baltimore, Maryland is at coordinates 39°17′11″N 76°36′54″W.  Maybe mention of maps or photos should be wrapped in noprint so it doesn't show up in printed copies; why mention that maps exist of Baltimore?  (SEWilco 17:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the simple statement of fact: can we proceed with substituting it? This template has been broken for months. (I think substitution with a bot is not a great idea, but it's much better than inaction and deadlock on the status quo). hike395 (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The changes are under way.  (SEWilco (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  - change made, please take a look & see if this is working as you wanted. SkierRMH (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I, for one, don't like that particular statement. It's not too bad in itself, but it's very similar to a statement frequently present in the Geography section, roughly, " is located at  (lat, long)". Example. That looks redundant, which is almost as bad as being empty. Even worse, some people had been putting the blank template at the end of the Geography section, which puts the redundant statements right next to each other. Since this template is/was usually in the External Links section, a single link might be better. Would it be possible to make the statement simply "*[(geohack URL) Maps of ]", no coord template, with the whole statement a link to GeoHack? -- Ken g6 04:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CLICK ON COORDINATES 

message: Several geo templates are mentioned as broken in the first subsection of Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#.23ifexist_limit  -- SEWilco 06:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: was mentioned only because its documentation pages use , which in turn does up to 10 ifexists per call. I've converted some of the pages to plain wikitext, but either way the limit doesn't change the template's functionality, only the documentation pages. --Para (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ifexist limit issues 

message: ==== Geolinks temporary single line ====
Interim proposal: Change Geolinks to emit a single line.  This has been proposed as an immediate change, while the rest of this discussion proceeds.
* Support - Reduce article clutter and get opinion of more people who notice the change. (SEWilco 15:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Comment - addressing the concerns this is redundant: It would be little work to change the template so it shows something (even revert to the old version if it's too much work to render a single line?) and then change it again to the final version. Meanwhile, we don't know how long this process will take, and the external links sections sit there looking empty and vandalized. Why can't we just act on this while the discussion continues? This has already gone on for a week... Katr67 13:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Discussion of the phrasing is below in section #CLICK ON COORDINATES.
* Support - Reduces number of coordinate templates used while preserving a map service link in the external links preferred by some people. --Para 17:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals 

message: Interim proposal: Change Geolinks to emit a single line.  This has been proposed as an immediate change, while the rest of this discussion proceeds.
* Support - Reduce article clutter and get opinion of more people who notice the change. (SEWilco 15:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Comment - addressing the concerns this is redundant: It would be little work to change the template so it shows something (even revert to the old version if it's too much work to render a single line?) and then change it again to the final version. Meanwhile, we don't know how long this process will take, and the external links sections sit there looking empty and vandalized. Why can't we just act on this while the discussion continues? This has already gone on for a week... Katr67 13:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geolinks temporary single line 

message: Proposed: Replace Geolinks with coord using display=title, so coordinates show on top of the page with link to map services.
* Support - Reduce article clutter.  (SEWilco 15:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace Geolinks with a title coord 

message: Proposed: Replace Geolinks with a line such as *Maps and photos of  at 
: Discussion of the phrasing is below in section #CLICK ON COORDINATES.
* Support - Reduces number of coordinate templates used while preserving a map service link in the external links preferred by some people. --Para 17:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace uses of Geolinks with a text and coord 

message: Proposed: Replace for US locations, replace Geolinks with  and .
* Support - This avoids having to remove empty ==External links==. -- User:Docu
* Oppose - Not a bad idea, except that there are many pages that already have GNIS links, and so I worry about a bot accidently leaving 2 in the EL section hike395 10:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace uses of Geolinks with [[Template:gnis]] and coord 

message: Proposed: Have Geolinks emit a single line such as *Maps and photos of  at Wikimedia Tools server as the new display format of Geolinks.
* Oppose - Does not help consolidating a small set of templates for coordinate entry. --Para 17:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geolinks single line 

message: Proposed: Make Geolinks use coord with display=title, but continue to display in-page Geolinks links to a few map services.
* Oppose - More clutter than needed in articles.  (SEWilco 18:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Both Geolinks and top-of-page coord 

message: Side effect: If Geolinks no longer emits visible text in an article, a bot should be requested to move it out of the "External links" section and the section headline of an empty section should be deleted.
* Support - This is a natural consequence of an empty section, just as already happens when links are removed.  Someone will request this unless we get a lot of disapprovals of the idea.  Others can omit commenting on this side effect unless we get comments to reply to.  (SEWilco 15:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Side effect: Remove empty External links 

message: There seems to be a deadlock in the discussion of the proposals: if I can make a caricature, most of the people in this WikiProject want to change geolinks, while most of the people outside the WikiProject don't want to change.
How can this be resolved? The current state (doing nothing) isn't a consensus, but an artifact of the protected state of the template, and that most of us are not admins. Is there some compromise that can be reached? hike395 20:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the answer is, please do something so that people like me don't waste 30 minutes trying to figure out what to do about empty External Links bullets like the one I found in Centralia, Pennsylvania. Jordan Brown 16:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This has dragged on for too long. Since there isn't consensus, I suggest reverting the template to its previous version until this is resolved. This may need to be brought up to the whole wiki community to break the deadlock. Katr67 16:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we follow the commonly used WP:BRD pattern, we should revert to the previous state, and then continue discussion. hike395 17:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This probably shouldn't have been set up as a poll with set choices, it discourages discussion and shows yet again, why Wikipedia is not a democracy. IvoShandor 17:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This was actually set up to try to untangle the many issues in the preceding discussion.  (SEWilco 17:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deadlock

message: There's currently a huge number of direct map service links on Wikipedia because that's the format easiest for people to add. They are used in prose as linked place names, numbered external links, external links named after the service, and in the references and external links sections. This kind of linking is hardly ever justifiable, as similar information is often available from many other services, and most services don't allow the user to request data from a specific date. If the contents of the link may change at any time, the only reason to continue linking to that service is if the section is about that particular service, like maybe in Satellite map images with missing or unclear data. All other direct map service links should be converted to coordinates, but it can not be done with a bot as the usage is so diverse.
I have put together a simple tool that gives a random set of such links from the database: maplinks-report. Would be good if people could convert a few every now and then; there are thousands. With some obscure links this may introduce unwanted sets of numbers in prose, which will perhaps also revive the inline coordinate display discussion. --Para (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken a look at several of the maplink reports. But how do you suggest that one can start. All seem to need the co-ords added to the infobox- but that is missing too. Often the article is one of a massive group, and they all need doing. Or are you suggesting that the link, usually in External Links, should just be converted to standard format, if so which? But couldn't that be done automatically? I've never written a bot so wouldn't know how to start?
ClemRutter (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the links I've converted so far, the use is so varying that they can't all be converted with a bot. You could however write a bot to convert a single subset. Articles with a map service link and no coordinates would probably be easiest, when the link is found in the external links section and the coordinates in the possibly many links match. In that case the link can just be converted to title coordinates, and someone can later move them to an infobox if necessary. Most bots run with the pywikipediabot framework, but AWB could be a big help already. Data can be found from Special:Linksearch or my maplinks-report tool. --Para (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map link conversion to coordinates 

message: I don't know if this has been raised before, if so I couldn't find it, apologies. The templates Template:Coord, Template:Coor_title_dm, [[Template:Coor_title_dms, Template:Coor at d, Template:Coor at dm and Template:Coor at dms all place the link at the top right of pages and it overlaps the XX,XXX have donated link/s. I suspect at at higher screen res than mine (1024x768) its OK but going lower only makes the problem worse. I'm not sure if fixing this is in the scope of this project or whether it needs to go higher, but it certainly needs fixing. Talltim (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was mentioned when the fundraising advertising appeared.  You're still seeing that behavior because no good solution has been found.  -- SEWilco (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Which browser version do you use? (If you're not sure - click Help -> About in the top bar of your browser) Orderinchaos 20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with format of coordinates templates on page 

message: The Geolinks and mapit changes discussed above are being made.  (SEWilco (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All uses are now converted to the "statement of fact" format. Most articles had the OSGB reference in the infobox already, but some stubs had it hidden inside a map service link without being shown, so I added  to those. --Para (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems to be an external equivalent of GeoHack, with the added feature to see a service list for nearby landmarks as well. It's already listed in GeoTemplate and doesn't need to be advertised in articles, so we can remove it from articles that have coordinates already, or replace it with coord when there's no other coordinates. --Para 03:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Orphaned. --Para (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This will be easy to convert to use coord directly, when a bot replaces all the uses as noted below. --Para 03:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The linked service is listed in GeoTemplate (#4 in the US section!), but GeoHack doesn't support the format of the scale parameter. Their documentation says that they need the wid parameter to be the width of the map coverage in degrees, so we'll have to add such a scale-derived parameter to GeoHack for this service to work correctly. What would be an appropriate estimate? --Para 03:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. The articles using this template pass linked article names within parentheses, so the bot run will have to take that into account to use the plain names as a coord parameter. --Para (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The modifications have now been done. People who haven't in the last two months seen any of the notifications of the planned change will now have a chance to comment. If we continue to have consensus and can go by #Replace uses of Geolinks with a text and coord, a bot can substitute the uses of all the coordinate templates in External links sections to the "statement of fact" format with coord. Then Wikipedia's coordinates will be easily available for Google Earth and the like. --Para 03:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated above, I don't like the current setup because the current statement is very similar to a statement in the Geography section of most cities/towns/villages/etc. One way to fix this is to change the statement. Another way would be for the bot replacement to merge the two statements. I've done this for Peetz, Colorado (diff) as a first example. My questions are:Does the community like this?Is it at least acceptable enough for me to keep doing it manually? -- Ken g6 (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It adds a bit of inconsistency. At the moment there's three places in location related articles where the coordinates can be found with some certainty: title area, infobox, external links, in that order. Some articles may have them hidden somewhere in the text, but without reading a few sentences around them you won't even know if they're for the whole article or for some small detail related to it. How many articles out of all location related ones have a Geography section, is its placement predictable, and does it contain something else than the data from the infobox in a list like manner? Also, the duplication of coordinates in different formats isn't really necessary. The Coord template creates some hidden blocks with coordinates in the other format, which readers can control with css rules. Now, I'm not against moving coordinates out from external links, but I don't think the Geography section is much better. --Para (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The last step of the requested conversion, substitution of the templates, so the coord template will be recognized by search engines, will begin after the start of the calendar year.  -- SEWilco (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geolinks/mapit changes 

message: I have finally found a place to comment on the changes that have been done to a template I have been looking after for two or three years now: . This was originally developed (by myself) to insert links to Google Maps and its equivalents. Less than thirty people seem to have had a discussion above and reached a 7:4 vote. Changes have therefore been made. I didn't have a vote. If I had, I just needed to find 5 friends to change this vote the other way. This is not democracy...
There is a reason to use geolinks-cityscale. If people want a quick link to maps of an area, they click a link. Map nerds can instead access geohack and have hundreds of options. The "compromise" reached is that the convenience of "one-click" mapping has been removed and the user has to look at a confusing list of hundreds of links. I have been busy for years adding this template to pages, dilegently finding co-ordinates to find that this month it has been completely undone. Not everybody is interested in maps. Most users of the Wikipedia want information.
So what is the problem that this change has fixed?
* One click mapping has become two click mapping
* A simple list has become a myriad of options.
I think people who are overwhelmingly interested in maps (or perhaps "order") have put themselves in control. If it ain't broke, why fix it?
I have reverted cityscale. It breaks my heart to see all my good work undone.
--Scotthatton (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a quick link to a map. Click on the globe icon next to the coordinates.  There are practical needs for a time limit on voting; if you don't show up to vote during Election Day your vote cannot be processed.  -- SEWilco (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't the Wikipedia supposed to be democratic? How can so few self-appointed people decide on changes that affect so many? I can't think of another walk in life where this would be so. --Scotthatton (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone had to decide, and the current decision is not my favorite either (as you can see from my above proposals).  You're insisting that your one voice should override what several have decided.  What is your definition of a democracy?  We also can't hear those who don't speak during the long discussion period.  The reasons given for the decisions are above.  -- SEWilco (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying my voice is more important. Of course I don't agree with it but that's life. I am very distressed that people started to implement changes. If there was no concensus, why isn't the status quo the default condition? In my company, everybody affected by a change is brought into a discussion. Nobody could have put more work into this than I and I feel it's been destroyed for no real reason. --Scotthatton (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The coordinate information is what is being preserved, it is being placed in a different wrapper.  We've all spent many hours tending various coordinate items (a few weeks ago I checked a set of government coordinates and sent corrections to that government agency as a side effect of adding them to Wikipedia).  -- SEWilco (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if my remarks have seemed directed against people in particular. They are not. I still cannot see what problem has been fixed by making these changes to cityscale and I feel disenfranchised. It's been an abstract discussion which cityscale has ended up being part of because it used coord. Nevertheless, as a result, an extra step has been added for a normal Wikipedia user who cares not for how useful it will be for Google Earth coordinate systems etc. I like maps as well but most people just want convenience. This is a backwards step. If I made any further revert back people can now say "Look - here it is being discussed and you missed the bus". So what my opinion is now counts for nothing. Absolutely and completely nothing. That is very depressing. --Scotthatton (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The GeoHack mess is similar to the ISBN problem: given a book/location identifier, how does one help users with many needs to find a useful resource?  There will be continuing discussions about improving the tools in various ways, as all this is being developed.  The globe icon's map isn't my favorite presentation either, but Wikipedia's map support is still evolving.  A User Preference for map presentation would be nice (someone let me know if there's a Bugzilla to vote for), but maybe that is in the Mediawiki gis extension which has not been installed here in en.wikipedia.  Indeed, I suspect it is most likely the geo software will be added after these location templates settle into similar and stable conditions.  My favorite recent improvement to the map interfaces was to have the proper region's services pop to the top of the GeoHack page, although I haven't been using it much due to always hunting down the Google Earth options.  Not that that interface is the best yet either.  -- SEWilco (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The selection of map services is indeed very much a reader choice. Just a long as a link is made to Geohack, coordinates for use by KML files etc. people should not be forced along a particular path. We might decide that the Netherlands deserves "one-click" map links different from Alabama. Geohack has its place but not as the first choice for all users. Indeed more discussion needs to be done but first of all, I want the old cityscale back. And the freedom to put it back. Katr67's link is very interesting. And thanks Para for the javascript ideas. --Scotthatton (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most readers who want to know where a place is really don't care which g'dam map they see (WP:OR). What they want when they click on a link that says "map here" - is a MAP! Until there is a single non-commercial map we can link to then let each editor decide for themselves. And if you change one of my location links to a link to a page of gobbledeegook don't get too surprised if you are reverted. Sarah777 (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're in luck: All Wikipedia pages with coordinates already link to a single non-commercial map, the WikiMiniAtlas. Try clicking on the globe icon next to any coordinates to open the map. Unfortunately we can't have instructive messages in articles to point readers towards map services, as they would belong to the user interface and are not information about the topic of the article. For the case when a user is not happy with our maps and wants to use external ones, what should we do to make the list of available services more usable? --Para (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No concensus on Geolinks changes