Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Archive 12

A quick survey of tagging progress
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)

Duplication of title coordinates
It looks as though articles that use Geolinks-US-cityscale and coor title dms 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)


 * Please see coord, 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)

Care should be take to avoid adding Geolinks-US-cityscale and coor title dms on the same page. As they are two separate templates, it should be fairly easy to spot collisions. -- User:Docu

Problems with Coord template
The Coord template doesn't appear to work on Great Barr, despite Great Barr being the sample article on Geo (microformat). Does it matter or will the Coord be discontinued? Seems a bit odd that people go around announcing that all articles should be like that. -- User:Docu


 * What do you mean "doesn't appear to work" ? It's working as expected, from here. No, coord will not be "discontinued". You appear to have something against it - perhaps you can reassure us that that's not the case? Andy Mabbett 16:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Just wondering, where are the coordinates on Great Barr supposed to be displayed? -- User:Docu


 * Exactly where they are displayed; coord is being used, there, with the default, in-line setting. But if you don't know that - which is clearly explained in the template's documentation - how were you in a position to criticise? Now that's cleated up, perhaps you'll kindly reverse your recent reversion of the note about it, on the main coordinates meta-template? Andy Mabbett 16:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm, not sure if there is much support for your idea.
 * Once the solution is working, maybe we want to discuss it. In the meantime, please stop changing articles from working templates to this type of mess. -- User:Docu


 * There is, apart form your bizarre, unsubstantiated and unfounded claims - nothing but support for the idea. It is already working. There is no "mess". I note that you have ignored the points in my previous post, and haven't been able to give the assurance I requested. I repeat: kindly reverse your recent reversion of the note about it, on the main coordinates meta-template. All you are succeeding in doing is stopping interested parties from finding out what's being planned.Andy Mabbett 19:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Two comments: 1) This is a new template and works somewhat differently than other templates, so comments that amount to RTFM are not helpful (nor especially persuasive for engendering support for using the template). 2) The "problem" with Great Barr as it is now, is that the coordinates are in a decidedly unusually location. If that is suppose to be an exemplar of the new template's use, then I quite agree that it is a very poor example. The coordinates are simply hanging at the bottom of the page -- is this recommended by any style guide at present? If you want to use it in-line, the put it into a sentence or a bullet point, not dangling at the end of article. Otherwise, the standard placement for bare coordinates is in the title area. older ≠ wiser 17:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is entirely reasonable to expect someone to "RTFM", as you put it, before they announce that something isn't working; especially when it is. The coordinates in Great Barr are exactly where they were put. If you want to see other examples (of which there are already thousands in Wikipedia), then I you do indeed (to again use your own phrase need to "RTFM", since they're right there in the template's documentation. Andy Mabbett 19:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Gee, thanks for more of your counterproductive rhetoric. While it may be completely unfair to the template (and anyone else who participated in developing it), your responses leave me inclined to ignore the template entirely and continue to use all the old familiar templates. older ≠ wiser 19:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad at least Paradisal read the manual and fixed Pigsonthewig's change on Great Barr. Compared to the initial version by the Anomebot, the number of templates called by the coordinates appears to have increased from 3 to 9:
 * Template:Coord (protected)
 * Template:Coord/input/d
 * Template:Coor/prec dec
 * Template:Coor dec2dms1
 * Template:Coor dms2dec
 * Template:Precision1
 * Template:Coor link
 * Template:Coor URL (protected)
 * Template:Coord/display/title
 * Are they a problem? -- User:Docu


 * Sometimes people seem to choose to write long comments of a problem they could fix themselves in less than a minute, so someone had to go around and fix the conversion in that article. I can't comment on the server load of the template, but still don't really agree on introducing an incomplete template or doing the job only partially when converting other templates to it. The disappearance of the parameter variable mentioned above (halfway down) for example doesn't seem to have been fixed yet, and with the Great Barr article Pigsonthewig "fixed" the problem by simply removing the grid information that was in the parameters. When rtfming it myself, I was of two minds whether to revert the conversion altogether or allow it being done partially. --Para 22:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

{outdent}

Firstly it would seem far more sensible for any concerns you may still have to be raised on the template's talk page, where the author of the template is more likely to see them. If you look there, you'll also see that the parameter issue is resolved (or, if you think not, you'll need to be more specific about what you think is still missing). The change I made to Great Barr was done deliberately, as I needed an article using that configuration for testing, so chose a relatively low-key page.Andy Mabbett 07:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I expected to see the followup here since the issue was raised here. But I have to admit that I didn't look past the first examples for info on parameters being supported or not, so I now added one there too. I advise you not to use live articles, even if low key, as a testbed for new templates, but instead have a sandbox of your own for that. --Para 22:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Standardisation of co-ordinates in infoboxes
Has anyone seen/done any work on this? Are there any guidelines regarding the preferred formats for coordinates within infobox data entry? I have seen a number of different formats in use:
 * Infobox UK place uses plain Latitude and Longitude parameters
 * Infobox Place Ireland uses north coord and west coord 
 * Infobox CityIT uses a coor simple template

The latter is picked up by Google Earth, but it seems the former 2 are not. Both transclude the coor template, which Google doesn't see.

Anyone any ideas? Ta Frelke 20:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A quick look at the source shows that Infobox UK place uses coor title d


 * Please be aware that the coor family are soon to be replaced by coord, which has all of their combined functionality, and adds user choice of display an the Geo microformat. Andy Mabbett 21:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Initially it wasn't possible to use coor at dm as an argument for coordinates in the article, e.g. on Venice, Italy one couldn't use coordinates = 45.43333°N, 12.31667°W for Infobox CityIT.
 * Back then, the way coordinates are displayed had to be defined in the infobox template. Thus the template was called with several variables, e.g. on Omagh there are: north coord = 54.36 | west coord  = 7.19 for Infobox Place Ireland.
 * IMHO, in general, it's generally preferable to use to coor at dm in the article, rather than the infobox template.
 * However, there is one case where you want to use the variables of the coordinates to display a dot on a locator map in the infobox, in addition to the coordinates themselves: e.g. as Template:Infobox German Location does with "lat_deg = 49 |lat_min = 18 |lon_deg = 10 |lon_min = 35" on Ansbach. This avoids adding the same coordinates several times to the article.
 * Ideally, if a template needs variables such as lat_deg, lat_min, lon_deg, lon_min, they are always named the same. BTW in the sample, they are always "N"/"E".
 * The use or non-use of coord doesn't really change anything to this. -- User:Docu

This is something that needs to be written down somewhere. It shouldn't be based on an individual's opinion. Frelke 06:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Standardisation of co-ordinates in infoboxes (2)
Has anyone seen/done any work on this? Are there any guidelines regarding the preferred formats for coordinates within infobox data entry? I have seen a number of different formats in use:
 * uses plain Latitude and Longitude parameters
 * uses north coord and west coord 
 * uses a °N, °W simple template

The latter is picked up by Google Earth, but it seems the former 2 are not. Both transclude the °N, °W template, which Google doesn't see.

Please can we keep this discussion relevant to the point in question and not include comments about the use of the brand spanking new °N, °W template Frelke 08:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A quick look at the source shows that Infobox UK place uses coor title d


 * Please be aware that the coor family are soon to be replaced by coord, which has all of their combined functionality, and adds user choice of display an the Geo microformat. Andy Mabbett 08:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Due to continued trolling I am discontinuing involvement on this page. Frelke 08:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Globe parameter
does the parameter globe work? I try: but it's still on earth. --WISo 09:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Tinsley Viaduct
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)


 * 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)


 * "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)

A poll is now being conducted. Andy Mabbett 20:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Coordinates for linear structures
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)


 * On a motorway, you'd do it in the list of junctions. --NE2 15:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * I'm not sure I follow you - why would it "clutter up the map"? Andy Mabbett 17:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * If you're concerned about having multiple markers for one article, than you should only include those coord 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)


 * Sigh. Sure, but that still wouldn't give me polygon data to plot on the map. --Dschwen 18:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Churches
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)

Coordinate template for non-terrestrial bodies
I've hacked up a coordinate template for non-terrestrial bodies which uses the USGS astrogeology mapbook and planetocentric latitude with east longitude (which, I believe, is the convention). It's currently parked at User:MER-C/Coord. MER-C 12:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work. I think you need to include a property to indicate the schema in use (UK coordinates assume WGS84 - we'll have fun when that eventually changes!). See the discussion of non-Earth Geo on the microformats wiki (and linked pages), which is pertinent. Instead of coor mars I would use coor|mars, allowing for other bodies to be named as an attribute, say coor|venus or coor|moon. Note also that the name coord is already in use; and that that template has display options (title, inline or both) which you may wish to adopt. Perhaps coorp, with "p" for "planet" would be OK? You could then have, say,  . I hope that the output would be Meridiani Planum (-2.1,354.5), or suchlike, and that the coordinates would not be hidden. Would you be kind enough to use the HTML class names in the "Straw Man" at the aforesaid page, as a test case? Please see also WikiProject Microformats Andy Mabbett 13:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd strongly discourage introducing a new template for this purpose.
 * Either add a parameter to coord or, even better use an already existing convention: the globe attribute! i.e type:landmark_scale:1000_globe:moon --Dschwen 13:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * coord may not be suitable, because of the different method of giving Westings. globe does not allow for a schema, as discussed above - though if these issues can be resolved, using coord may make sense. Andy Mabbett 14:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't quite se/understand the problem, please could you elaborate? --Dschwen 16:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Terrestrial coordinates range from 0 to 180 (Eastings) and 0 to -180 (Westings). AIUI, other bodies use 0 to 360. In each case, respectively. 10 west of the meridian would be -10 and 350 (all figures in degrees). A schema needs to be stated, because there is more than one way of measuring coordinates on the Moon, and on Mars. Again, see the linked discussion for more. Andy Mabbett 18:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't this a complete non-issue?! There is no ambiguity between the two schemes. Just use a modulo and both schemes are the same. --Dschwen 20:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Mars ones aren't quite the same. See, for example, . Notice the difference in latitude between the coordinate systems. MER-C 10:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the difference between Planetocentric and -graphic (explained here). But why is that an issue? We have to decide upone one system to use and the ensuing coordinate transformations to adapt to the various(?) map sources can be performed server-side. There are different coordinate systems on eath as well, still we are currently establishing a single template and have long decided to go with WGS84 as the coordinate system. --Dschwen 11:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, coord links to http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/geo/geohack.php?params=, which is very useless for stuff outside of Earth. And the naming was something I haven't decided - it was originally designed only for Mars but due to the inability of the USGS mapbook to produce meaningful output for a given location I changed the implementation. The new implementation has the additional bonus of working on every planet. MER-C 05:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That can be changed easily. I'd volunteer to adapt the maphack. The code to adapt the westings could be included sever-side. --Dschwen 08:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice job MER-C. I agree that the Eastings/Westings issue looks like a difference in signedness that's easily resolved by use of modulo. Integrating it in the same php script and templates would keep syntax and presentation uniform (though I can see arguments against it as well). —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-23 10:20Z

Title coordinates gone wrong?
Has something gone wrong with the template for title coordinates? For example, Shoreham-by-Sea's cooordinates at the top right are touching the line below the article title. (I'm using Internet Explorer 6, if that helps.) --A bit iffy 08:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also previously noted this problem, which seems to happen with certain infoboxes that set a smaller font size. I had suggested that the low-level template be modified to use a constant font size in the title area rather than inheriting it from the infobox. It could probably also be fixed in the infobox template but that would just fix that particular infobox. --GregU 13:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Greg. I'll leave another request at Template talk:Coor at d.--A bit iffy 09:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You should be able to fix the problem on Shoreham-by-Sea by placing Template:Coor title d on Template:Infobox UK place before " 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))


 * " " with the (click for maps) phrase wrapped in ... so it won't be on the printable version.  (SEWilco 15:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Same as above but "* PAGENAME is at coordinates..." so as to not order reader to Find it. (SEWilco 15:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC))
 * " " is the current phrasing used in Template:Geolinks-start. I think the noprint (click for maps) should be added.  (SEWilco 20:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC))


 * 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)

I'll rephrase: The grammar on the proposed phrasing (number 1 below) does not seem quite right. Is there better phrasing? The text is bolded for this example but would not be bolded in articles. (SEWilco 03:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC))


 * 1) * Maps and photos of Baltimore, Maryland at 39°17′11″N 76°36′54″W. (click for maps)
 * 2) * Find Baltimore, Maryland at coordinates 39°17′11″N 76°36′54″W. (click for maps)
 * 3) * Baltimore, Maryland is at coordinates 39°17′11″N 76°36′54″W. (click for maps)
 * 4) * Maps and aerial photos for 39°17′11″N 76°36′54″W' is the current phrasing used in Template:Geolinks-start.  I think the noprint (click for maps) should be added.

For most coordinates templates, the standard span (mouse over) title already reads "Maps, aerial photos, and other data for this location" (see talk). Stating where someone should click is contrary to the concept of wiki (and HTML). In your sample, the following formating should be sufficient: at least, IMHO. -- User:Docu
 * 1) '''* Maps and aerial photos for 39.28639°N, -76.615°W


 * 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))


 * 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)


 * The changes are under way. (SEWilco (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC))
 * ✅ - change made, please take a look & see if this is working as you wanted. SkierRMH  ( talk ) 06:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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, " ". 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 " ", no coord template, with the whole statement a link to GeoHack? -- Ken g6 04:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ifexist limit issues
Several geo templates are mentioned as broken in the first subsection of Village_pump_%28technical%29 -- SEWilco 06:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * coord was mentioned only because its documentation pages use Template example row, 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)

Geolinks-coord Issues
The Geolinks and mapit templates display in articles links to a few mapping services, placed in the "External links" section (the preceding are referred to as "Geolinks" below). The recent coord templates show geographic coordinates in article text and/or on the top of an article, with links to a page with many mapping services. Using both in an article may be redundant.


 * There are many articles with Geolinks templates which show the links to map services in the articles.
 * Geolinks were proposed at Coordinate-referenced map templates but that page is idle, so we seem to be discussing the topic here.


 * Map service links shown by Geolinks are redundant and fewer than those available by clicking on coord's coordinates.
 * Some people prefer the Geolinks in-article links to map services.
 * Geolinks might not show the map services which a user prefers.
 * Some people prefer to reduce clutter in articles and have all mapping services on a separate page.
 * Having all mapping services on a single page makes finding a service difficult.
 * The page with all mapping services now displays at the top the links for a region when one is specified with a "region" option or found automatically based upon coordinates.


 * Geobox and other infoboxes are emitting coord-style coordinates which are linked to the page of map services. In this discussion those are discussed as if coord is being used, and alteration of Geolinks is relevant to those pages which have Geolinks.
 * Some infoboxes added coordinate usage after Geolinks already existed on pages which used the infobox, and article editors may not have been aware of the two tools.

Policies and Guidelines
There is a preference for Wikipedia to not be a link directory; it is recognized that sometimes it is useful to have a link to a directory such as DMOZ. That discourages the in-article links which Geolinks emits. The large list shown by coord is a specialized link directory, although a location-oriented service which is also not in the Article space.

It's one of the stated goals of this WikiProject to do away with external links to maps ("4. Should be able to have a uniform, extensible way of accessing all types of map resources, avoiding having direct external links to maps in articles")
 * External links: Links should be kept to a minimum.
 * Other WikiProjects are expecting these links: see, e.g., WikiProject_Cities/Guideline, where these links are recommended.

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))
 * Support - Katr67 18:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Support - CapitalR 21:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Why change it twice unless it also says there's a discussion of whether to eliminate this? dm 22:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - because the current state has left hundreds or thousands of articles with empty EL sections, and has been in discussion limbo for weeks now. Can we agree to this, at least? hike395 18:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If we are to replace it anyway, there isn't much use for such a intermediate solution. -- User:Docu
 * Support: The interim solution is a good compromise, while we get more input. I share Katr67's and dm's concern that there is not enough community input. hike395 10:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- mostly because there little point to changing twice. older ≠ wiser 12:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is a really bad way of making a change (re getting more opinions - all you will get is heat - it's a method of making changes which happens too often on Wikipedia and convinces ordinary users that we're not actually interested in what they think). Orderinchaos 22:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - what a stupid suggestion. This template (and the Mapit equivalent) is really useful and does not need to be changed in any way. JRG 05:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - a discussion may ensue, but it will avoid the appearance of a WP:CABAL. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support one-line-visible fix &mdash; Invisible Mapits (which are redirected to Geolinks, remember) are causing layout breakage (empty External links) that even editors fairly familiar with Wikipedia (like me) were not told about. I'm a regular editor and yet I just discovered this accidental-blanking-looking thing just today.  Templates and layout that work as expected are far more important than the desire to mass-remove information that does no harm; and apparently, whoever did this "fix" didn't get it right the first time, so let's keep it functioning like it was designed until it's actually decided for good.  Add a link in small type about ongoing proposals if you want to see a discussion. --Closeapple 01:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Replace Geolinks with a title coord
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))  And User:Para reminds us of the WP:ISBN focusing of book sources on a separate page.  (SEWilco 15:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Oppose - Casual users of Wikipedia might not know map resouces are available by clicking coords link. Katr67 22:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Having both is not a distraction in my book, but making geolinks collapsible rather than in external links is an idea dm 22:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It may be preferable to keep the redirect to coor title d (less overhead) and replace the geolinks-templates with a new coordinates template once we have adopted a single one. -- User:Docu
 * Oppose: per Katr67, one line is not that much clutter, and is helpful to casual readers. hike395 10:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- a little redundancy is not inherently bad. And personally I find the toolserver coordinates page rather daunting to use, even after repeated use -- I can only imagine what it is like for an inexperienced user. older ≠ wiser 12:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Katr67. The coord page (especially for countries such as Australia which are WAY down the list) is very hard to navigate - I only ever use coord|title when I'm sure almost noone will look for it and really just want to know roughly where it is. Also coord is unconfigurable for size. Orderinchaos 22:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: Have you clicked on coordinates lately? -- User:Docu
 * Strong Oppose JRG 06:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: per Katr67 and Hike395 Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Replace uses of Geolinks with a text and coord
Proposed: Replace Geolinks with a line such as
 * Discussion of the phrasing is below in section .


 * 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)
 * Support - Although prefer preceding replacement with coord. (SEWilco 19:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Support - Though I don't relish getting used to scrolling through the list to find what I usually use, it's better than not having anything in the external links section at all. Will also be more useful to casual Wikipedia users. Comment - should say "aerial photos". Katr67 22:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Neutral - If you did this, I'd prefer to make this somehow user configurable, the very long list of mapping services is questionable dm 22:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose This just readds redundancy. -- User:Docu
 * Partial Support It's an improvement to the (current) previous versions of the geolinks templates. 5 Dec 2007 -- User:Docu
 * Support - Comment: why replace (i.e., force a subst) Geolinks, rather than have Geolinks emit this? This seems like the best idea: I prefer this to the proposal which keeps geolinks without using coord. hike395 10:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support (although 'geolink' is a nice name similar to 'geobookmark') --Geonick 22:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, although this is perhaps the least objectionable of the proposals that replace geolinks with coord. older ≠ wiser 12:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose The coord page (especially for countries such as Australia which are WAY down the list) is very hard to navigate, and the links which result are unconfigurable - it'll result ultimately in a major reduction in usability for users, and is also inflexible as the size of maps emitted by the toolserver is at the wrong scale for what we use. I'm not against streamlining/improvement of Geolinks-style templates, but this just strikes me as a faulty application of policy to support a minority's point of view which results in an imposition on the majority, who are contributing users and broadly speaking are getting sick of bureaucracy creep on Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 22:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Question have you clicked on coordinates lately? If you use it from Australian pages, Australia is all the way on top. -- User:Docu
 * Comment The scale used with the links on the GeoHack page is configurable; unlike with Geolinks, it is not given by choosing among coordinate templates of different scale and location, but by using the single coordinate template that can be used anywhere on Wikipedia and giving it the type and/or scale of the object the coordinates are representing. Normally, only type is needed as it's reflected to many scale parameters used by various services, but in exceptional cases a specific scale can also be given. I think this and the dynamic section placement Docu pointed out solve both of the concerns mentioned. --Para 22:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. JRG 06:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per Katr67 and Hike395. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per Para. --Dschwen 03:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. S♦s♦e♦b♦a♦l♦l♦o♦s  ( Talk to Me  ) 20:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Replace uses of Geolinks with Template:gnis and coord
Proposed: Replace for US locations, replace Geolinks with gnis and coor title d.
 * 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)
 * Comment - Just tell the bot author about your concern. Using existing bot code, I'm aware of two solutions.  (SEWilco 18:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Oppose - Many locations do not have GNIS entries and the GNIS is redundant with the name, coordinates, and description which should be in the article. (SEWilco 21:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Comment - If there is no other external link, this would be a minimal reference for the article. -- User:Docu
 * Comment - Maybe a sweep should be done to add gnis to relevant articles, but that is a separate issue from coord/Geolinks. Except that existing coordinates in an article could be used by a gnis bot to automatically confirm that the article refers to a GNIS entity.  (SEWilco 15:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Oppose We're replacing with a deprecated template? Orderinchaos 22:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. JRG 06:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Geolinks single line
Proposed: Have Geolinks emit a single line such as  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)
 * Oppose - Redundant when coord's links are available. (SEWilco 19:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Oppose - Redundant indeed. -- User:Docu
 * Oppose - if this is my proposal (?), I would withdraw it in favor of emitting a single line with coord (to address Para's concern) hike395 10:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. JRG 06:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Both Geolinks and top-of-page coord
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))
 * Support - More useful than going through the long list of every mapping service dm 22:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - In general, this just adds clutter. In a few cases, a link to map specific to an article may be suitable, but in general, map links shouldn't be made through Template:GeoTemplate. -- User:Docu
 * Oppose - now that region is a useful parameter, I can live with the geohack list. hike395 10:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, for the simple reason that the current toolserver pages are quite confusing at present. However, some of the geolinks templates could be trimmed down to be less verbose. If the toolserver pages settle down to a workably user-friendly structure, then perhaps the geolinks templates would be unnecessary -- but until then, no. older ≠ wiser 13:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Links in articles to general information services can never satisfy all the readers. This is why book sources, which all ISBNs link to, have been centralised on a single page instead of listing the "most popular" services in all articles about books. Map services are no different. Coord provides the link to the centralised list, making additional service links redundant. If the current list is confusing, report what the problem is and propose a list change. --Para 15:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Isn't this the status quo? Agree with older-wiser on all counts. Orderinchaos 22:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I don't think there is nothing wrong with the current list, but if this is the status quo then I'm happy to support this. JRG 06:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - One-click access to the maps I use, rather than having to scroll down to the appropriate section of the general map-links page. —wwoods 14:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Side effect: Remove empty External links
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))
 * Support -CapitalR 21:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support unless replacement with gnis is done. -- User:Docu
 * Support unless some fix is done. Anything to avoid empty EL sections, which makes WP look bad. hike395 10:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Alternatively, one could just comment  out. -- Ken g6 23:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Since there are way too many of these empty links, using a bot may be the bestest of ideas. Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I actually only became aware of this issue because of the huge number of empty "External Links" sections that suddenly appeared; having a bot handle the cleanup sounds good. Huwmanbeing &#9733; 21:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
I tried to summarize the issues above. I suggest cautious editing of items above Proposals. Voting-type feedback in Proposals with comments; readers remember that meanings might change a little if the preceding summary is edited, and try to avoid simply referring to a previous person's comment in case they need to change their comment. (SEWilco 15:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

We should invite discussion in affected WikiProjects. I'll invite ones which I find. (SEWilco 15:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC))


 * Comment How do the two single line proposals differ? Can we merge the two? Katr67 17:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Interim proposal is for an immediate change (I'll alter the wording). The second one-line proposal is for it to become the new format for Geolinks.  An immediate change seemed to be suggested in previous discussions.  (SEWilco 17:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC))
 * I don't see much difference between "Geolinks with a text and coord" "Geolinks single line" because the latter seems like an ambiguous proposal from the discussion where the exact format of the single line was not particularly important. Isn't the concept behind the two point-at-detailed-list suggestions the same?  (SEWilco 18:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC))
 * The single line proposal in its current form isn't to replace the geolinks templates, but their contents. That helps only with external link clutter but not with template standardization. The other proposal of replacing with coord and text is for replacing all the uses of the geolinks template with a readable coord text. Currently many articles have an "invisible" display=title at the end, but if people prefer to see a link at the end, the "text and coord" proposal would do that. --Para 18:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone observed that readers might not know that clicking on coordinates will show map info. Should this information be in Basic navigation or a related page?  (SEWilco 21:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC))
 * If the Geolinks message tells people to click on the coordinates, there will be many articles with that instruction which will teach people about the clickable coordinate links. This reduces the need to increase the size of the instructions for Wikipedia beginners.  (SEWilco 15:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC))

Deadlock
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * This was actually set up to try to untangle the many issues in the preceding discussion. (SEWilco 17:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

Deadlock broken
There is 7-4 support for  (and recent changes to GeoHack might affect a Neutral and Oppose). I'll soon create a request for that change; if you have comments on the currently poor phrasing please discuss at  below. (SEWilco 20:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Question: do you mean to replace all instances of Geolinks with text + coord (using a bot), or make Geolinks emit text + coord ? It wasn't clear to me which we were discussing: I prefer the latter. hike395 03:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest discussing that along with the phrasing at . Because output formats is the reason templates were created, I was going to initially request changing the geolinks templates to emit the same message.  This also reduces difficulties if further changes are needed.  Then geolinks can be merged or replaced with text.  (SEWilco 06:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Changing the Geolinks templates to emit something different was proposed at and . The proposal SEWilco mentioned would "replace uses of Geolinks with a text and coord" using a bot. The phrasing is to be discussed. --Para 10:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I claim that the polling, above, confused three issues: the phrasing of the line, whether coord should be called or not, and whether there should be a geolinks template. I supported because I liked the phrasing and the calling of coord. I don't see why we have to get rid of geolinks if it simply calls coord: it's a convenience template.


 * In fact, I would claim that getting rid of geolinks entirely is bad for this project: without a standard template that calls coord, editors may start to drift away from the usage that you want to proscribe. It's much better to enforce uniformity through a template, rather than through guidelines. hike395 05:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the several topics were entangled and split because that's what the result seemed to be of the discussion. How about starting a new topic only about retaining Geolinks with a one-line phrase?  There is time for that discussion because I'll be starting with that change and not initiating Geolinks replacement&deletion until after a reasonable delay.  Please comment on the one-line phrasing in  and start a separate section on whether Geolinks should be kept.  (SEWilco 06:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Comment: I'm not sure if having several different options is helping here, especially if you're asserting there's consensus. It's confusing and somewhat arbitrary.  Perhaps you need to make it a straight poll on whether we should have geolinks, geohack, or both.    Plus, 11 people sounds like a really weak population.   On a tangent, I've been using the geohack page quite a bit to make sure I understand the opposite point of view.  I find the lack of "scale" to be quite annoying.  When using geolinks while editing articles, I've been able to pick the appropriate scale for the feature being pinpointed.  I'm not sure if there's something I'm missing, but I dont see this feature in geohacks.   Why are we trying to kill geolinks again? dm 05:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The consensus is leaning toward replacing Geolinks with a GeoHack-using message. Yes, we haven't gotten many participants but that seems to be those who care of those who found the discussion during mention in a VP, several Projects, and several Templates.  There will be time for further reaction between changing of Geolinks and their replacement.  I thought I saw a scale option in coord, but I think it's now automatic based on the coordinate precision (number of digits after decimal point).  (SEWilco 06:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC))


 * My point is that I can equally argue that 7-1 oppose or that we are 4-4 .   I do not believe the deadlock has been broken and I suspect that the various choices have with good intentions, put us in a spot where no good decision can be made.  dm 13:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, people who commented did oppose some options more than others. I haven't compared user names between options, but of these options there is one where there are more supporting comments than opposing.  (SEWilco 15:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC))


 * There seems to be a common misunderstanding that scale wouldn't be supported with GeoHack. GeoHack supports scale: click on any coordinates on Wikipedia, and you'll see the scale at the top of the page, used by services that support a scale. Most coordinates on Wikipedia however do not set a scale explicitly, which might be the source of the misconception, but this doesn't mean that no scale is given at all. Most coordinates use an implied scale, that is, they set the type of the object (see WikiProject Geographical coordinates and Template:GeoTemplate/doc), which implies its size and thus the scale needed to show it on a map. --Para 10:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for the info. Just for clarity, can someone pls confirm the proposed update to the geolinks template will automatically translate the various scales to the geohacks version so that all of those thousands of edits out there will not have been in vain?  Thanks dm 13:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I will be translating the Geolinks parameters in my change requests. The scale parameter will be supported.  (SEWilco 15:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Thanks, that would certainly help. Do we have an example that you could point to of how this would look? dm 04:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are several examples below in the section , where I am getting no feedback on the phrasing. (SEWilco 05:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC))

Removing empty headers for the template that was already changed seems to have a lot of support as well.

We should probably not take in account "votes" of people that clearly haven't used the mapsource page recently, such as stating "The coord page (especially for countries such as Australia which are WAY down the list) is very hard to navigate". -- User:Docu


 * Disenfranchising users because they disagree with you or to try to generate an artificial consensus in favour of your proposal does not conform with any standard of consensus building or good faith. I am rather disturbed at the above comment. I know this has been archived, but I was very busy with work and then on holiday for just over a month so didn't see the end of this discussion. Orderinchaos 12:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I ignored that qualification comment when studying the results of the discussion because in context the criticized comment was not relevant to the results. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I recognised that, but I was addressing the fact the comment was made to begin with, and the attitude it betrayed on the part of the user concerned. Orderinchaos 18:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy of Google vs Yahoo vs Topozone vs MapQuest
I'm new at this, but when I plot coordinates, I find that each vendor points to a slightly different place. For example, I tried to aim the coordinates for Ramona High School (Ramona, California) to a large circular building in the center of the school complex. See 33.02692°N, -116.86911°W. I centered it in Google's satellite view, but off center in the others. Does anybody have any knowledge of which mapping source is the most accurate for the US? Thanks, Project Coordinates (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to use Google Earth first myself, which is the same as Google Maps, and I cross-check with Yahoo and Live Search. I'm not sure if one is consistently more accurate than another. Since they vary you probably shouldn't try to be so precise. I'd just use 33.02722°N, -116.86917°W for this school since that is the usual precision for something of this size.


 * Having said that, there is one way you can get an idea of which source is the most accurate, if there is an airport nearby. The exact coordinates for airport runways are available at AirNav.com (for US airports) or at World Aero Data (for elsewhere in the world). Looking up the Ramona Airport in AirNav and testing those coordinates, it appears that the Google imagery here is about 10 ft too far SE, Yahoo is about 55 ft too far ESE, and Live Search is 12 ft too far west. So in this case at least, Yahoo is the one that is the most off, and Google is a good choice to go with. --GregU (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm going to change my username now, btw. I don't like it anymore. Project Coordinates (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

UK co-ordinate conversions faulty?
I'm not sure if this is the right place to raise this (if not, then please forward this appropriately, someone), but GeoHack's co-ordinate conversions seem to be a little bit off.

For locations in London, maps called via UK National Grid co-ordinates (eg Streetmap, GeoGraph) seem to locate places a couple of hundred metres west and north of where they get indicated on eg Google Maps using degrees, minutes and seconds.

This is somewhat disconcerting when trying to add location co-ordinates. Can we find out where the mismatch is occurring? Jheald (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * For example, for Big Ben, without decimals we have 51.50056°N, -0.12444°W, which WikiMapia places just to the East of the clock tower. Geohack converts this as TQ 30168 79678; but Streetmap, GeoGraph etc show that as the intersection of Bridge Street and Parliament Square, about 200m to the West, and 50m to the North.


 * Putting N51:30:02 W00:07:28 into Streetmap's own converter gives TQ 30281 79624, which matches the WikiMapia position.  This looks like a bug in Geohack.  Jheald (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder if this is a datum issue, where one system is using the WGS84 datum to perform conversions, and the other is using OSGB36? Lat/long coordinates in Wikipedia should use WGS84 throughout. -- The Anome (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Both pages say that they're using WGS84 for lat/long. But perhaps GeoHack is actually converting as if from OSGB36?  Jheald (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That does indeed look possible. GeoHack's grid conversion is mapping 51.47722°N, °W squarely to the centre of the Royal Greenwich Observatory building, when according to Prime Meridian WGS 0° should point to a rubbish basket about 102.5 to the East of the brass strip. The OSGB36 meridian is actually 6m to the west of the brass strip; and according to OSGB36 the transformation most commonly used (eg by Streetfinder?) can add another 7m error. That compares pretty closely with the 113m difference found between the two Eastings for Big Ben. Jheald (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for completeness: GeoHack is translating that lat/long to TQ 38875 77313. The Ordnance Survey "gold standard" converter  says TQ 38987 77259.  And Streetmap's converter says TQ 38989 77258. Jheald (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been working to produce my own tool to convert Grid to WGS84 see OS to Wiki Templates (WGS84) Toolfor a Beta version. It was to put inlines into a page en:River Bourne. The maths is complete- I am tweaking the UI. Indeed I have a discrepancy but have not analysed it- gut feeling suggests it could be 113m too. As I used Roger Haworth's Javascript code for the clever bits- could it be that there has been a typo introduced into that or Fishers c code? ClemRutter (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that the 113m is correct for London, but the discrepancy varies with longitude (as one would expect for an WGS84-OSGB36 difference). So for a point near Lands End, 50.06861°N, -5.71611°W translates to SW 34114 25409 according to GeoHack, SW 34177 25338 according to StreetMap, and SW 34182 25340 according to the Ordnance Survey -- i.e. an East-West error of only 63m. -- Jheald (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick look at the Fisher convert.c code, and I think you're right: it looks like it converts from the Grid coordinates to OSGB36 using the Airy 1830 ellipsoid . But there's no way it converts to WGS84 -- there's nothing in there to define the WGS84 ellipsoid. Jheald (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The file that will need to be fixed is geo/transmercator.php . As surmised, it has a routine to convert from OSGB36 lat/long -> OSGB grid coordinates; but no routine to convert from WGS84 lat/long to OSGB36 lat/long.  Somebody should also verify whether there is a similar problem for the Swiss co-ordinate system, which uses the CH1903 ellipsoid.

Bug filed on JIRA:. Jheald (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There's GPL'd PHP code that can be spliced in to do the conversion here (also Java and Javascript translations).  Other implementations, but in Javascript, can be found here  and, with explanation, here.


 * Template oscoor has a similar issue - it's converting to OSGB36 lat/longs, not WGS84 ones (see here). This code may have been used to convert a number of UK national grid references to lat/longs -- if so, they are all going to be slightly wrong.  Jheald (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)  However, conversions done automatically by The Anomebot2 are apparently correct. Jheald (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! I rather hoped that was the case. -- The Anome (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I raised this issue with RHaworth, whose external site performs the (faulty) gridref-to-latlong conversions, back in March, but he hasn't done anything about it yet. See User talk:RHaworth/Archive to 2007 April. I use http://www.nearby.org.uk/ whenever I need to do a manual conversion in either direction; I don't rely on Wikipedia's own conversions. --Dr Greg (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have posted a copy of the conversion code I used to do the earlier National Grid --> lat/long conversions, at User:The Anome/lat-long.py, which I hope performs a reasonable conversion from both OSGB and Ordnance Survey Ireland grid refs to WGS 84 lat/long. It's in Python, and was (mostly) auto-converted from some GPL'd code written in PHP, by a variety of earlier authors: see the original comments within the source file for its origin, and the original authors. I've done a few bits of manual cleanup to the overall program flow, but the maths is pretty much verbatim.


 * If anyone wants to use it, could they please spot-check a few locations, just to check that it works OK? -- The Anome (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just checked Colchester Castle, which was one of your conversions, and your numbers exactly match Streetmap's conversion.
 * BTW. There's another wrinkle in oscoor -- it's adding 50m to the Easting and the Northing of a 6-figure gridref when it passes the data on to GeoHack (ie it's assuming the Gridref is indicating a 100m x 100m square to its north and east, and giving the centre of that, as if somebody has got the gridref by doing a floor rather than a round . I am not sure that is correct -- I don't think as a rule people do go to the south and west when they give map references; so I don't think oscoor should be adding those extra 50m. Streetmap doesn't, when it's doing conversions. Jheald (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats not a bug- its a feature!. Wikipedia convention is to tag or reference or mark the centre of a map not the left bottom corner. The code I have been examining tags the centre of the TQ 675 123 square, not the left hand corner! So we have TQ 6755 1235! I havent had time to examine Anome s Python code other to see it is very clear and well written and should be very easy to convert into Javascript and retrofit into my code and RHaworth code. Give me a couple of days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 15:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ClemRutter (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's wrong. If WP has a grid reference, the map should show where that grid reference is.  We don't know whether the grid reference cited was meant to indicate the gridline intersection to the bottom left of an object on the map (which is what you're assuming).  It could equally well have been chosen to indicate the nearest gridline intersection.  We should just convert the number.  Jheald (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Note also that there are three versions of code already in Javascript linked to above for the datum change,, , (documentation).  Wouldn't it be easier to start with one of those?  Jheald (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Many questions.I am trying to locate the errors, and to do it I have written a bit a code to do a fixed job. In doing so I now am suspicious of every piece of code- including my own. It is a design decision that every programmer must make as to what OSGB36 point the four, six, or eight figure refs refer to. Each is valid, it is a POV as to which one to choose, whether you floor it, round it or average it. In my tool, designed to provide a inline reference to go alongside a 6fig GridRef transcribed from 1950s reprints of 1930s reference book that had references in the form '5 furlongs NNE of the church'. When the original reference was calculated that way, it seems reasonable to use the 'average'. Personally I prefer 'floor'. There is no definitive 'number'. We are left with two approaches to these numbers.
 * Identify the error, and patch a correction.
 * Identify size of the error (in each case) and post process a further filter, to pull the erroneous WGS back to actual by a simple transformation using an array of constants fixed to each letter square!
 * ClemRutter 13:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Request for control points to use as test data
 * Does anyone have the precise grid references, and WGS84 coordinates of a set of control points to act as testdata for the various calculations floating around. All the texts are clear that latitude and longitude can only be expressed within a margin of error, and change with height and time, so the best we can achieve is to define accuracy of each method with reference to a control point. This will apply to our method of data collection, and chosen method of data display. ClemRutter (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest we use the StreetMap conversions as our target. They are well defined mathematically, easy to check against, and correspond to within ~7 metres with the (distorted) historical grid defined by the 1938-1966 surveying. Jheald (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Map link conversion to coordinates
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Problem with format of coordinates templates on page
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Geolinks/mapit changes
The Geolinks and mapit changes discussed above are being made. (SEWilco (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC))

Issues:
 * Geolinks-UK-mountain - not converted due to Ordnance Survey coordinates. (SEWilco (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC))
 * 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 oscoor to those. --Para (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Geolinks-US-colorphoto - might have specialized usage. (SEWilco (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC))
 * 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)
 * Orphaned. --Para (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Mapit-AUS-suburbscale - converted but note usage of lat|long parameters instead of numbered parameters. (SEWilco (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC))
 * 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)


 * Geolinks-US-surrounds - specialized Census usage. (SEWilco (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC))
 * 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)


 * Geolinks-US-river - Special template that takes two named coordinates: the beginning and end of a river. Some of the articles have an infobox with the same information. Should probably be converted to two external links of the statement of fact style, with (mouth/source) at the end. --Para 05:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Several requests are awaiting administrator action. When the changes are done someone might want to check which templates can be merged, as many of the templates which specify a region might no longer be needed due to automatic region detection. (SEWilco (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC))


 * 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, 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Note to project of similar templates that should be handled: Template:WikiMapia 1078 uses, all the articles have at least one coordinate template already, should be removed from articles in the bot run and then deleted. Template:OnGoogleEarth no uses, for deletion. --Para (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Some old geolinks template seems to have been subst'd all over, and will be more difficult to replace. Articles where it has been used should be easy to find though, as it links to a rarely used hostname. See links to virtualearth.msn.com for a list: there are currently 664 articles with the substed template. --Para (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No concensus on Geolinks changes
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: geolinks-cityscale. 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Scott, I share your frustration, but you have heard the expression Wikipedia is not a Democracy? Katr67 (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You should look at the "vote" more as a list of points for or against the proposals instead of counting people. The selection of map services is very much a reader choice, and though the people who have maintained the geolinks templates have done a good job, the editor chosen short list of links can never serve the entire world. Except with very specialized services, map links in articles are not information about the articles' topics, whereas coordinates are. Perhaps we should work on making this clear on External links and maybe guide people who add direct map links without using any templates at all? Anyway, to get the selection more to the direction of the reader, on Commons there was a request for configurable map links, so I wrote Google Maps Love.js to add a Google icon next to the globe icon. Something similar could be made here to add a set of links to External links or popups. --Para (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Geolinks-cityscale
Note: A similar discussion is at Template talk:Mapit-AUS-suburbscale. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This proposal notes the following:-
 * Following a discussion in October and November, Geolinks and the templates such as geolinks-cityscale using it, were changed to emit a single line
 * Geolinks now outputs the latitude and longitude of a place in the top right of an article and also at the position of the template in the article
 * Geolinks outputs a format usable by third party software such as Google Earth

This proposal recognises the following:-
 * The Wikipedia's aim is to be an easy-to-use source of information to its readers
 * Geohack in its current form is of interest to people who wish to see multiple map sources
 * The recent change to Geolinks means that users uninterested in mapping options are two clicks away from seeing links to maps, may wish to easily find a map of a place, are generally not aware that clicking a coordinate brings them to a page of mapping options and lastly may not require so many mapping options
 * The discussion in October/November came to a inconclusive decision which made changes to the status quo
 * Discussions here are made by people who have a keen interest in mapping and may be not representative of general users.

This proposal suggests the following:-
 * Until Geohack matures into a easier-to-use, maybe inline version (discussions have been progressing at Geohack on this subject), no changes should have been made which force its use.
 * A solution needs to be found which offers links to mapping on the article page.

This proposal concludes the following:-
 * There are multiple needs. Users who want easy links to maps and users who want further mapping options.
 * Recent changes to geolinks serve the second community but not the first
 * Geolinks-cityscale served both communities before the recent changes
 * Geolinks-cityscale should have direct mapping links restored while not affecting the links to Geohack nor compromising third party uses such as that by KML/Google Earth
 * Geolinks-cityscale has been well-looked after since its inception and has no known issues with missing data

Interim proposal: The geolinks-cityscale template has the direct mapping links it had before the November change restored until Geohack or an equivalent product matures further.
 * Support - As the (biased) originator of geolinks-cityscale, recent changes have lessened the usefulness of the Wikipedia. I am only proposing this change for cityscale. Hence if links are restored to this alone, a useful comparison can be made down the line to other templates still emitting a single line. --Scotthatton (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The above is incorrect. Single-click map is available by clicking on the globe icon.  That is the major issue specified above (and no link to a progressing Geohack discussion is provided).  -- SEWilco (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Previous consensus-building process was flawed (it did not in fact come to a consensus, and 11 users is not a basis on which to enact such a wide-reaching change) and failed to recognise wider user/community needs, focussing on narrow development/standardisation goals. We now have users running off and doing their own thing as a direct result of the imposition of the last one, which cannot be a good thing. This is what happens when Wikipedia's processes for doing things cooperatively are abandoned in favour of totalitarian if mechanically efficient solutions. Nobody was ever able to highlight any problems with the existing system, and through careful management, linkspam was avoided. Orderinchaos 18:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Paraphrasing what I said at Template talk:Mapit-AUS-suburbscale, what we do here should be done for the convenience of readers, ahead of the preferences of User:s or developers - if I was a first-time reader, which of the following would best *inform me* where I can find map information?


 * Coordinates: 42°01′48″S 147°29′31″E


 * or


 * Maps and aerial photos
 * Street map from Street Directory, Google Maps and Multimap.
 * Satellite image from Google Maps and WikiMapia.
 * Topographic and bathymetric map from Bonzle Digital Atlas of Australia. --Melburnian (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Clutter. Why should we sponsor certain map services and not others? What about Mapquest, Yahoo, Map24, etc.? Furthermore putting a verbose list of geocoding links in the article gives it too much space. It's usefull yes, but keep it in proportion please. --Dschwen 12:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the people opposing the proposal either had no reasoning or weren't up to date with the recent page navigation developments on the map sources page, the change has been implemented partially, pending a bot subst run. The dislike of Wikimedia's own mapping service or change from one to two mouse clicks for the rest is hardly reason enough not to go on with the change. --Para (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Wikipedia offers information, and for external map service links to be information about the topic of the article, the chosen links would have to reflect the quality of the services' imagery for that location. The assumption that a single editor chosen set of map services could ever serve all cities around the world is however severely flawed: some areas are better covered by some services than others, but those services don't always have better coverage than the others, so linking to the selected services isn't information about the topics of the articles at all, but linkspam. If we had a structure in place to allow users to evaluate the quality of each map service per article or even just on city scale, and then be able to link to the top services on the dynamic list from each article, then those links could perhaps be offered in articles. But since we don't, and such a quality indicator would depend on quite a few factors anyway, making it close to impossible to implement, the only solution is to list them all and the place for that is obviously outside article space. Therefore no solution needs to be found to offer redundant mapping links in articles directly. Also an objection to the conclusions of the proposal: the coordinate template the articles will soon use directly is currently the only recognised uniform way to enter coordinates in Wikipedia. The geolinks templates are not and cannot be made uniform, so they do not serve the alleged second community of people who are not content with links chosen by a handful of editors, but want to see the whole of Wikipedia coordinate information in other services such as the WikiMiniAtlas, Google Earth, or any other service not included in the geolinks list. Coordinate template standardisation serves the entire Wikipedia community, making coordinate entry the same no matter what region the location is in or what its scale is.
 * As a slightly vision impaired person, I do find geohack unreasonably difficult to use - just way too much distraction. So it's not just an issue of "one or two mouse clicks", it's an issue of usability - and that's even with the changes that were made recently to it. Orderinchaos 04:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, that point hasn't been made before, let's work on improving the usability. A few months ago there wasn't input from many people at Template talk:GeoTemplate, but perhaps now we can look at it again: what can be done to have the page less distracting, while keeping all the services? My proposals at the time were a list with icons or the same in columns. (If people do have ideas on improving the GeoTemplate, let's discuss it at its own topic somewhere, rather than related to this proposal.) --Para (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: User registered on Wikipedia 23h before posting the comment.
 * Support - Exceedingly glad I found this discussion - I was wondering where the links had gone. I want to find links to maps easily. Why are people so opposed to Google Maps? It's by far the best way to find where a location is. If it's the best external site to Wikipedia, why remove links to it? Or is it a prejudice against "comercial" sites. If so, the Wikipedia is full of links to external sites. --Faylawnsett (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On what criteria would that be the best map service all the 300,000 Wikipedia articles with coordinates should link to? What about the other services listed in the geolinks templates, are they also the best? Is that criteria generalisable to the needs of all or even most of our readers? We need to be consistent on our linking to map services, and so far there's been no reason for Wikipedia to promote one commercial service over the others. --Para (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As an editor, I am trying very hard to understand this debate, I a feel I have a duty to put forward an opinion. I use Google Maps with a passion- but for UK editing I choose Magic maps because of their superior scale, representation of watercourses, mapping detail and overlays such as SSSI's. I don't want to lose that. Can someone give me a list of example page where these templates are used. Are we talking about Geolink-UK-Cityscale or what? Where can I see the source code- as I cannot find one? How has work been lost, if the link goes to geohack?


 * Slightly off focus, but I do find the map that the globe icon points to particularly useless- does a solution turn around sacrificing that direct link? I wish I could be of more assistance.ClemRutter (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell, some people liked geolinks ability to put a select few maps inline on the article page. Some people regionalized these templates for better selections in a given area.  Others liked it because you could select the scale down to a building as part of the Geolink.    On the opposing point of view, there's the thought that rather than make arbitrary choices about which maps are featured, make everyone go to the giant list of all mapping services.  Improvements were made to that page to allow for scaling and a form of regionalization, though perhaps not as much as could be hoped for.  There's a lot of red herrings and partial solutions offered, but I suspect no one will be happy here.  One specific concern is that only 10-15 people have been active in this discussion. dm (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As documented in WikiProject Geographical coordinates, you can add  |region:GB  to make the British options appear at the top of the Geohack list. Geolinks-UK-cityscale is using that, and without it an automatic process tries to do the same.  -- SEWilco (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. "300,000 articles" - these are custom templates for different countries and purposes, so that the most appropriate services can be chosen for each country. And each country's editors can come to consensus amongst themselves rather than having to deal with the central and macro-heavy Template:GeoTemplate. If the changes were just for the default template I'd agree with them, but preventing specialised templates from promoting particular appropriate services is too limiting. It's not like the Geolinks service isn't still available, it's still in the standard top-right location for all coordinates. TRS-80 (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "still in the standard top-right location"? The numerical coordinates were not being displayed by Geolinks in the top-right corner of articles until the change was done.  And your comment about each country suggests more documentation needs to be added to the GeoTemplate's presentation of the most specific data first (I don't remember whether it presents the relevant country or region).  -- SEWilco (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that this is not correct. Co-ordinates have always been displayed on the top right by the template underneath - indeed before I wrote cityscale originally. --Scotthatton (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, there it is: WikiProject Geographical coordinates says to try the two-letter country abbreviation in the region specification. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Orderinchaos's comment on says that's how things were, and it's my recollection too, old versions of Mapit-AUS-suburbscale included coord as  . Country selection isn't good enough, different services are appropriate for differently-sized and located regions - coverage of towns in rural Australia differs a lot between mapping services. To re-iterate - I support the change to the global template, but leave the country-specific ones alone, as they are better maintained and more appropriate for their regions. TRS-80 (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to accept that the top-right coordinates were present in some Geolinks code; I edited so many templates that I might be remembering what a different template was doing. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I can think of many many examples where country selection is not enough. You'd want an Ordnance Survey map to give justice to a remote area like northern Scotland. You'd want Streetmap to link to street maps of London. Both are in the UK. The solution does not lie in scaling as streetmap does not supply street-level mapping of Edinburgh. You'd need a London version alongside a UK generic to provide maximum service. --Scotthatton (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No geolinks templates exist for areas more detailed than country level though, so this is all hypothetical. If that kind of detail was wanted and we had the service coverage information required for such a feature, it could easily be added to GeoHack, as the more detailed region information is already available (see with Edinburgh for example) and filtering services out of the list would be a simple comparison of scale values. This could all be done with geolinks too of course, but requiring edits to the related articles, and with highly subjective results because of the editor chosen services. Anyway, it would not be a good decision to not provide links to services that don't have very detailed data of a location, as we can't know what kind of detail the user wants to see, and some users may be accustomed to using a specific service (which may not, again, match with what the geolinks editor chose). --Para (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not hypothetical, see directly below at where there's a listing of the various country templates at various scales - building, street, city etc. TRS-80 (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Scotthatton was talking about lists of services on a sub-country level, to see a different selection of services depending on the location of the region within the country. Currently neither GeoHack nor the geolinks templates support this. What you seem to be talking about is one of:
 * geolinks templates imply a scale of the object with their name. This translates to the scale parameter in all the coordinate templates, and is relayed to map services through GeoHack.
 * geolinks templates for small scale objects do not link to services that are appropriate for the region and are included in their larger scale counterparts, but don't have small scale data. This practice is incorrect, as it assumes that readers expect to see the object with that small scale only, and not just its general location.
 * geolinks templates for large scale objects do not link to services that are included in their smaller scale counterparts, because ...? Absent any criteria for inclusion, I'm guessing this is because the large scale template editors like the services they chose, and the small scale template editors don't like them.
 * We can give hints in some way on how one service might be better than another, but we should not leave services out because of personal preference. --Para (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "preventing specialised templates from promoting particular appropriate services is too limiting" ?? It's not for Wikipedia to promote external services! --Para (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Remember Some people have replied at Template talk:Mapit-AUS-suburbscale. Please take their views inro account. Aatomic1 (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Geolinks coverage
In theory it's a nice idea that there would be a maintained geolinks template for all scales of all the world's regions, but in practice it's unmanageable. I looked at all the Geolinks templates from before the change, and here's the results:

What the table doesn't show is all the areas not covered by the geolinks templates. There is no consistency, not in the selection of map services within a region, not in the selection of map services within articles of a certain scale, and not in inclusion of services local to an area, except in very few cases. Most of the included services are global, and their imagery can change at any time without any notice. The problem isn't that Wikipedia wouldn't have articles from the regions missing in geolinks templates (see map of coordinate coverage), but that there is nobody to maintain the templates. People supporting reversion here are mostly interested of the area they're taking care of themselves, ignoring all the remaining ones. Many of the regions the geolinks templates propose are also too big to really include the best services available for some of the areas listed in GeoTemplate. When a random reader comes to Wikipedia and wants to find the location of an article or a better view of the area, we should provide a predictable link to better map services, and Geolinks cannot do that. --Para (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe this is the crux of the entire discussion in different topics scattered throughout this article. I am the originator and maintainer of cityscale and have indeed maintained it throughout its existence. I have fixed mistakes, improved co-ordinates, disposed of linkspam etc. for a long time now. From discussions I see that the Australian maintainers have been doing the same job. Other templates have not had this care and attention. All geolinks templates are not equal. There is a strong case for getting rid of some - the Europe ones are too wide in their remit.


 * As for "When a random reader comes to Wikipedia and wants to find the location of an article or a better view of the area, we should provide a predictable link to better map services" I can 100% agree. But it should be on the article page. I trust the Australian maintainers to find great "predictable" Australia-wide sources plus the biggies like Google Maps etc. I don't know Australia and so trust Australians to know their best providers. In the UK I'd want to see Ordnance Survey; in the Netherlands lokatienet. these are great local services. You can with Geohack bring mapping to the top. The problem is that's it's still one click too many away... --Scotthatton (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * All articles with coordinates related to the whole article should be treated equal, to provide readers consistent and predictable map links. "Predictable" here could mean that a global map service found in one location related article should then be found in all location related articles, and a regional one in all articles in or somehow connected to that region. Any partial deletion of geolinks isn't progress at all. If some people want geolinks in articles, but there are no editors to create and maintain templates for all the world's regions in a consistent way, then that's an impossible scenario and we'll have to use the central list used by Wikipedias in many languages and other Wikimedia projects. Then map links (as coordinate links) can be truly predictable, to always show the same global services and applicable local ones. We can later work on getting the services listed in an order following some yet-to-be-defined criteria. --Para (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as the attributes can be linked in the title and the user has the option of going to the blindingly confusing geohack page (on which I can't even find Wikimapia any more - I think I managed to once - but most times I have to enter the link directly and enter coordinates manually - how is this an improvement?!), or using our somewhat easier to use links, isn't that good for Wikipedia overall? I don't really mind what happens in areas which didn't have coverage or didn't significantly use the templates - for those an international template can be used. However, for regions (or past use of templates) where there is a strong group of readers and editors and where consensus is not unhappy with what they previously had and clearly does not want the new version, then telling them "we know what's best for you and you're getting it whether you like it or not even though we can't even get an international consensus amongst other regions' editors" smacks of arrogance and elitism, and is not and should not be how Wikipedia works. Orderinchaos 20:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's not good for Wikipedia to have two separate ways for reaching map sites, when one of those isn't guaranteed to exist in all location related articles, may not be up to date, is based on personal preferences of a handful of editors, and links directly to those arbitrarily chosen advertising supported services. If there are any problems with the GeoHack interface, please report the specific problems somewhere so that they can be fixed. The motives of the main geolinks contributors are highly questionable when they are not interested of mapping links Wikipedia wide, but only for their particular region. Since the links in the geolinks templates don't add anything the coordinate templates don't already have, they are nothing but convenience links as interface elements that should be uniform throughout Wikipedia. There have been cases on Wikipedia before when strong groups of readers and editors were unhappy with fundamental Wikipedia policies, wanted to see them changed, and felt offended when their efforts were turned down, calling it arrogance or elitism. Links to map services are not information. --Para (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Orderinchaos is mainly concerned with an Australia-wide template. I am mainly focused upon a worldwide template. Though we are both on the other side of the debate from Para, we are coming from two different angles. Much as I enjoy being told what I think and why I am thinking it, I have come to the end of this debate. Para does not agree with me and I don't agree with Para. This is understood now. --Scotthatton (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)