Talk:Stony Head, Tasmania

41°00'00.0"S, 147°00'00.0"E
Re

I continue to assert that the existence of 41°00'00.0"S, 147°00'00.0"E within the range is is no more notable that the existence of any other geographic point, and ought not be there. However if it is there, it should be verifiable, hence requires a citation. It is not quite as obvious as the sky being blue, as implies with this edit comment linking to You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Note also that WP:FACTS explicitly says "this essay ... should not be considered a replacement for the core content policies" (Verifiability in this case.) WP:FACTS continues "if someone else is challenging material ... then it is by definition likely to be challenged" and so "so must be cited".

So again I request a citation to verify the fact. Presumably it should be easy to find one. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You're challenging the fundamental existence of a geographic fact? Ridiculous. It doesn't need a citation, and your continued complaints are ludicrous. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am asking you to provide a reference to support the statement that a specific geographic coordinate is within the bounds of the range. It's not ludicrous - verifiability is a core policy. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that statement needs a supporting citation for it's location – any map shows that. The question is why it should be mentioned in the article at all. IOW, sources for its notability are required. Without them, it's irrelevant fluff. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * — Then it ought to be easy to provide the citation. But more accurately it needs a map that includes both the boundaries of the range, and geographic coordinates for reference (lines of latitude/longitude, or the coordinates of sufficient points on the range boundary as to reasonably illustrate that it circumscribes the point in question).
 * — That was my original preference, one that I maintain. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph in March, citing this talk page, but restored it. I've removed it again, because there is still no indication that the point is significant. Macktheknifeau, please explain why that particular point is. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Please explain why that particular point is not important enough to mention? Wikipedia isn't space limited. There's no reason to exclude it. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's disappointing you're trying to start an edit war over your stubborn desire to remove legitimate content from an article. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Per previous discussion, it is (to quote ) irrelevant fluff in the absence of any indication why that point is important. So again I ask, what is the relevance of that particular location? Mitch Ames (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The "citation" that Macktheknifeau provided seems utterly irrelevant to the question of notability. According to the table of content of the cited Chang (2016), Introduction to Geographic Information Systems, page 24 is section 2.2.2, "Map Projection Parameters", a subsection of 2.2, "Map Projections", in the book's chapter 2, "Coordinate Systems". I challenge the relevance of that citation with regard to the question at hand, that location's significance. I also note some inconsistency in the bibliographic details: according to OCLC records, in 2016, Chang was in its 8th edition; the 9th appeared in 2018/19. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A simple examination and citation of Degree_Confluence_Project would or could have made this very strange conversation redundant ages ago, it is like, why solve something when the mentioned project renders such locations as targets. JarrahTree 02:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So the mere fact of an integer intersection of latitude and longitude makes a location noteworthy? No sources required? That will be news to many, and needs to be codified in WP:NGEO. As long as it isn't, it's fluff. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we can work with this. The point is notable because the Degree Confluence Project was refused permission to go there. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)