Talk:Victoria Island structure

Coordinates
Ikluft recently reverted my removal of undue precision in this article's coordinates. We don't need to give the coordinates of a 5.5Km-wide feature to a precision of about a centimetre - WikiProject Geographical coordinates specifically says "A general rule is to give precisions approximately one tenth the size of the object, unless there is a clear reason for additional precision. Overly precise coordinates can be misleading by implying that the geographic area is smaller than it truly is." This is especially true where the coordinates are for a nearby feature, not the subject of the article itself. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The recommendation to limit precision of coordinates is for cases when one is making one's own from a map or a GPS device. The coordinates you downgraded were from USGS GNIS. Using numbers directly supported by a reference is a different situation entirely which takes higher priority. Ikluft (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And I reverted the change again, citing WP:V. Please note that Mr Mabbett left comments on my talk page, here and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates and then re-did the change here without waiting for any of the discussions he initiated. Ikluft (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No; you reverted a different change, to uncited coordinates. The cited coordinates are for Victoria Island; the second change (as made clear in my edit summary) was to coordinates for the Victoria Island structure. As the article itself says, "current publications do not list a more precise location for the impact structure than the island"; and yet you insist on having the structure located to a precision of ~1cm. The discussions elsewhere are about the former change; not the latter. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's cited in the infobox now. With that attempt to call the numbers cited elsewhere on the same page as "uncited" in the infobox, you're limiting my options to imagine you're dealing in good faith - are you?  All the escalation and apparent forum shopping initiated by you has left me wondering if you're engaging in a harassment campaign because of the Infobox crater TfD and yesterday's discussion in the village pump. What's up with that? If it isn't your intent to make that impression then cool it. Ikluft (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You have now copied the citation to the overly-precise coordinates in the infobox, even though the cited web page refers to the island, not the impact site. This is misleading and against WP:V. Furthermore, the cited web page lists three sets of coordinates, as representative of an area; not merely one with centimetre-precision. And please keep your hysterical accusations off Wikipeida. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There will eventually be further research published which includes coordinates for the buried crater. Until then, WP:NODEADLINE and WP:DONTPANIC.  The coordinates for the island are good enough to say what it was named for and is described as being underneath.  As long as the point on the map is on the island, it doesn't warrant the attention you're giving this. Let it go. Ikluft (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Until then, we can fix a set of inappropriately-precise, and now bogusly-cited, set of coordinates. There's no need to keep such a harmful entry and reverting its correction is spectacularly pointless (as is being made clear to you at WT:GEO). Trying to lay blame for such silly behaviour at my door won't wash. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)