Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:44, 10 April 2007

Archives

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5
• Archive 6
• Archive 7
• Archive 8
• Archive 9
• Archive 10

To do

How should coordinates be formatted?

Please help with the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Ridge Route; thank you. --NE2 01:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference geo coordinates from an article

With some wonderful code,[REDACTED] now churns out clickable location maps of countries which add a new degree of interactability to the wiki ex: Indian_Institutes_of_Management . But the process of marking each point using coordinates is tiring and cumbersome especially if something like a clickable road map is to be made.
It would be very useful if one could reference the coordinates from an article, like geo:London would return the geographical coordinates of London and mark it on the map. This can really unleash the power of location maps. Also posted on bugzilla here-- 16:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Template to request coords

I've created Template:LocateMe. Should it go on their talk pages (as in the few examples currently tagged) or on the articles themselves (like other clean-up tags, such as clean-up itself, or "uncited" and so on? For now, please start using it (and advocating its use) if appropriate - just type {{LocateMe|April 2007}} (or whatever month we're in after this one)) on talk pages. Andy Mabbett 23:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

FAQs?

As a newcomer to this project, might I suggest that the following questions go on the project page (or in a FAQ linked from it), with better answers than these "starters":

• Q: How precise should the coordinates be?
  • A: Only as precise as needed for the size of place or structure; for a city, for instance, two or three decimal places or the nearest whole minutes - no need for seconds.

• Q: The place is very big - what coordinates should I give?
  • A: For a building, the main entrance; for a city, the nominated centre point (e.g from which road distances are measured), if there is one, or the location of the main administration building (Town or City Hall, etc.); for a park or open space, the approximate centre.

Though the points are currently covered, they're not immediately apparent; and a "FAQ" format is more easily absorbed by first-time visitors.

Comments? Additions? Brickbats? Andy Mabbett 23:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Roads

If we were to implement coordinates into the roads articles, how would we do it? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

See Ridge Route. Andy Mabbett 14:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

request for a bot to apply "LocateMe"

Please note my request for a bot to apply "LocateMe" to articles about places, in need of coordinates. Andy Mabbett 09:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you requested that bot tag the talk pages, which would be fine, but I don't see the point of tagging the article pages with an banner asking for a trivial piece of information to be added. In all probability the tags will stay there for a very long time, detracting from the article without having any benefit. If every wikiproject started pushing their project this way wouldn't all the articles look lovely? Yomangani 15:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I first suggested the talk pages, but was told that using the article pages would be more appropriate. It's also in keeping with {{expand}}, {{ISBN}} and other "cleanup" type tags. Your reference to "trivial" information is unwarranted, and your final question, I presume, rhetorical. Andy Mabbett 20:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Andy Mabbett 20:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the coordinates are as trivial as ISBN numbers, but they certainly don't make or break an article, and citing other obtrusive templates that appear on the article page as a precedent for this one doesn't seem a particularly strong argument. Who benefits from the inclusion on the article page rather than the talk page? I'd be interested to know what the reasoning was from whomever suggested you put them on the article page. Yomangani 22:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I add my voice against tagging articles. Tagging the talk page is sufficient to build a category list of articles to be tackled. Tyrenius has also spoken against tagging articles, at User talk:SatyrBot/Current project. So far 525 articles have been tagged. I do not think there is consensus for this action and would ask you to desist & reconsider. --Tagishsimon (talk)

See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#LocateMe bot --Tagishsimon (talk)

I'm absolutely against this being placed on the article page. It's not something the average editor will respond to. It is a specialist task. Tyrenius 04:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed: as I said at Template talk:LocateMe, this template should appear on the talk page (if anywhere). It is more like {{reqphoto}} than {{copyedit}}. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add Coordinate Display Format into User Preferences

Did anything ever come of the May 2005 suggestion to add Coordinate Display Format into User Preferences? I'd be strongly in favour. Andy Mabbett 12:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

New template replaces "coor" family

Important! Please note that {{template:coord}} has just been made available. It replaces the existing "coor" family of templates (which now redirect to it); simplifies data entry; standardises display; and deploys a Geo microformat. {{template:coord title}} will follow shortly. Please advise fellow editors, and update documentation, accordingly. Please also notify this project of any coordinate-listing templates which do not include coord. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 13:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Please be aware that when you make changes like this you break machine readability for other tools (like google earth). I'm not opposed to making changes, but our changes should be in the direction of consolidation, and I'm not sure that this change is going far enough in that direction. --Gmaxwell 14:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth - or anyone else - can now read the Geo microformat, regardless of what current or future template generates it; no need for it to try to parse numerous templates - and that's a great step towards "consolidation". This has been discussed for sometime; there have been plenty of chances for such issues to be raised. Andy Mabbett 14:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If google spidered our webpages any faster we'd probably have to block them. ;) The microformats don't help people working off dumps, which is the preferred way to work with all of the data. I raised this issue months ago when we first setup google earth's import, and I really don't appreciate your dismissive response. --Gmaxwell 17:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about working faster - it's just working "smarter". Surely WP is primarily for people working off pages, not data dumps? Andy Mabbett 17:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We have millions of pages, it is not reasonable for someone to have to make millions of http requests just to extract the locations of all our pages. We provide dumps for this purpose but the vast number of possible geocoding templates makes extraction from the page data unreliable. The addition of this template as yet another way to code coordinates in articles just makes the problem worse, when with a few minor additions to the templates we could solve the issue completely. --Gmaxwell 18:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Other issues aside, it seems that the way you want things to work prioritises the convenience of data manipulators like Google over and above the convenience of editors and the convenience of individual end users. It strikes me that that's a bad thing, so I hope I've misunderstood you. I'd be grateful for clarification, please. (Also, is there a better place of all of these issues to be discussed, which will involve more of the people involved?) Andy Mabbett 22:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

... Can you please spell out your concern in detal? I don't follow, so hopefully more detail would help me understand. I haven't intentionally suggested anything that would cause difficulty for editors and, in fact, I think having fewer geocoding templates should make life easier on all of us. Google was invoked because I've spoken to them directly on this exact issue and people here seem to care about them.... But our internal data extracts are in the same boat, things like Wikiminiatlas also need a straightforward way to extract our geodata. Scanning every article via HTTP is completely unreasonable. --Gmaxwell 22:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Outdent 1

The new template is intended to be easier for editors to use; and provides more standardised output for the benefit of end users. It also provides a Geo microformat, again for the benefit of end users (I trust that we agree that these are all good things?). It replaces three other templates (and eventually six, or nine; I'd proposed bot-replacing all the coor family with "coord"), which satisfies your "fewer geocoding templates should make life easier on all of us" comment, with which I wholeheartedly agree. Doesn't that also make things easier for wikicode parsers? Don't Google scan our HTML anyway? I'm not clear why the new template is less satisfactory for the internal uses you mention. Andy Mabbett 23:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we please capture the coord title functionality into this template? For example {{coord|latitude|longitude|display=title}}. The proliferation of geotemplates is making machine reading of wikitext very very hard to do well.--Gmaxwell 14:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you raise the specific changes you request with User:Quarl. Again, microformats will greatly increase the machine-readability of articles; see Project Microformats Andy Mabbett 14:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking from experience, *nothing* which comes in via transclusion is useful for machine readability of the Wikitext. If someone is working from the dumps they need a complete copy of the templates as well as a full Wikitext parser (um which means our horribly slow PHP one, since there is no other parser with complete template support) in order to use anything that comes out of templates. This is an unreasonable requirement.

I am reverting your changes to the instruction pages, we don't need yet another widespread uncoordinated breakage of machine readability unless it's going to actually solve some problems. --Gmaxwell 17:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It *is * solving problems; and it is not "uncoordinated" - you have had plenty of opportunity to comment, while this was being discussed, on numerous talk and project pages. I've restored the changes. Please discuss as resolution before reverting again. Andy Mabbett 17:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How am I supposted to know about discussion on a page whos existance I could not have known about? The changes were not discussed here as far as I know. Please don't make us look like idiots. I've spend a lot of time wearing the Wikimedia hat coordinating with reusers and researchers and making a part-way change to our wikitext format will just make our readability problems worse. I think the changes are a good step but we should make sure they address all the important issues and then mass push them across the project rather than making a part-way transisition which will leave yet another syntax that people have to support. --Gmaxwell 17:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to see my prior post on our interface problems]. --Gmaxwell 18:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To which . Andy Mabbett 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure enough, I missed it. :) Um, except they don't at all solve it for us. I realize that microformats are the current ultimate in buzzword compliance, but if implemented via templates they don't do anything to make our actual pages more machine readable. For example, how does coord's use of microformats help me write a bot that goes removes locations which are known to be incorrect or which adjusts the scale for georefs inside a given bounding box? .. We tell people who want to work with our data (including our own users) to use the dumps, but microformats transcluded via n-deep indirection are not helpful there.

Please note, I do strongly support us having microformats. My objections are that (1) we shouldn't change the project wide syntax without also addressing the other machine readability issues, and (2) we shouldn't break existing features (i.e. adjustable scale). Adding some simple modes to the coord template (one to adjust the title, one to output the lat, long in dec. deg. for use in other templates) would get us a lot of the way there. --Gmaxwell 22:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Outdent 2

When I said that they resolved problems, I was referring to machine readability of HTML pages; which they do assist. They won't help the machine readability unless they're added as discrete components in each page's wikicode - which is certainly do-able, but would require a lot of re-engineering elsewhere. I suppose that's a result of an organically-grown, rather than fully-spec'd, system. Still I'm glad that we;re finding at least some common ground. I don't know enough about the way templates are made to understand you last sentence (my understanding is of HTML and microformats); I hope Quarl will be here soon; or perhaps you can make the changes? Andy Mabbett 23:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Gah, it looks like we've just been having a misunderstanding. From the start I was only insisting that:

1. We should replace tags rather that adding more.
2. We can only do this if the new template covers the old features, which this doesn't yet.
3. We can also only do this if we have an active consensus, not simply a failure to object.
4. It might also be wise to contact the authors of some of the existing tools that use our geodata.
5. I'm not aware of any existing browser features that use microformats ... but we have wikiminiatlast *today*. Doesn't mean we shouldn't provide microformats, but it does mean we shouldn't break the tools.
6. We shouldn't make any wide scale geocoding template changes unless they resolve the outstanding issues of machine access.
7. We can resolve these issues by some simple additions to the proposed new template, but these additions might break the proposed syntax, so we shouldn't roll until they are ironed out.

Now that you have my attention, I'd be glad to work with you and everyone else to get a solution which fixes everything. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gmaxwell (talk • contribs) 23:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Thank you. I've numbered and sub-divided your points, for convenience. I agree them all in principle. I think "coord" satisfies #1. Where and how do you suggest we achieve #3? Do you have a list, for #4 (I have some separate issues I'd like to raise with Google, about microformats (uFs) rather than WP, if you could put me in touch - in confidence of course)? #5 - there are a number of browser tools which use uFs, such as Operator, Tails and WebCards for Firefox. For more, see the "implementations" sections for each uF on the uF wiki. As for #7, like I said, that's beyond me, but I'm happy to learn; and to assist n any way I can, and to do the subsequent work, updating documentation, informing editors, etc. Andy Mabbett 10:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"How am I supposted to know about discussion on a page whos existance I could not have known about?" - The issue was flagged up on this talk page, on this project's main page, on Template talk:Coor dms and on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals). Andy Mabbett 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Where was it discussed here, I can't find it. I only look at VP once a week or so, the SNR is terrible. ::shrugs:: --Gmaxwell 22:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the Parameters variable? - I think that the change to Template:coord should be reverted ASAP until the parameters can be included. The lack of the parameters variable means that the scale parameter is completely ignored, and maps are always requested at 1:300000. Theother parameters are not currently used by the geo-hack interface, but they probably will be used in the near future. Now users have no way of tagging what type of item is listed, what country it is in, or, most importantly, what scale it is. --Ozhiker 18:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure enough it doesn't pass scale. Blah! I was hoping we could get away without reverting the rest of the changes. *sigh* --Gmaxwell 18:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the redirects to Template:Coord until we can fix the parameter issue. - jredmond 18:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've referred the matter to User:Quarl, who edited the templates (at my request). Hopefuly, we can find a speedy remedy that will satisfy everybody, and meet everybody's needs. Andy Mabbett 21:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Geographical coordinates is currently incorrect - it needs to be reverted to show Template:Coor as the primary coordinate system until it is successfully phased out.

Also, the documentation for Template:Coord does not mention Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Geographical coordinates. I think it should.

I am getting the impression that this new template is being pushed only by User:Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett). Is there anyone else in favor of making this change?

So far I cannot see any benefits but there are a lot of potential pitfalls. I don't think that the potential inclusion of geo-microformats are worth us accepting any loss of features of the existing templates, especially since the geo-hack page already has the geo-microformat.

--Ozhiker 00:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that most, of not all, of your concerns have been addressed in the preceding discussion. If you can see "potential pitfalls" which have not been addressed, then please identify them specifically. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 07:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok - the pitfalls I can see are mostly compatiblity and functionality concerns due to the enormous number of pages that use the template.

If the final HTML produced is different to the previous template, then:

1. Compatibility with all browsers, when template is in a variety of containers, positions and styles.
2. Compatibility with all templates that currrently use the coor templates
3. Compatibility with external tools, such as the indexer for google earth

Since the template is significantly different to the coor series in operation, the impact on the[REDACTED] servers should possibly be investigated, to make sure the new template does not create more lookups or other server load.

There is a good chance that functionality might be different in subtle ways that some people will perceive as a loss of functionality.

Functionality that is still missing that needs be implemented and tested before release:

1. Ability for article authors to control how the coordinates are displayed, either by displaying the same format as entered in the template or by specifically choosing a display format.
2. Parameters (eg scale, region etc) with ability for future expansion

New Features which would be useful:

1. Name tag for coordinates, allowing articles which have multiple coordinates on the page (eg Arthur Range) to tag each set of coordinates with a name for external parsers.

--Ozhiker 10:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Some of your issues are already resolved; I suggest you see Template:Coord/doc, which is still being updated by Quarl as I type. It may also be more appropriate to use its talk page, for further discussion, and especially for extra feature requests. Of your first set, there should be no significant changes, but I thought Google Earth parsed wikicode, not HTML? I still find some of your suggested pitfalls ("functionality might be different in subtle ways", for example) too vague to address. Andy Mabbett 10:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Update

Quarl is done updating {{coord}} and adding additional backwards compatibility. Please see his summary at Template_talk:Coord#Updates and comment there. We'll now need to look at how this works for wikicode parsers. I think he's done a great job. Andy Mabbett 11:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

May I take the chance to ask for another little feature: a title arguments. With lots of inline coordinates (i.e. Ridge Route) external usability of the data would be greatly enhanced. My ideal solution, forget about the display= argument, request a title= for every inline coordinate and put the one coordinate without it in the title. --Dschwen 21:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please ask on Template_talk:Coord#Updates. Andy Mabbett 21:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Templates with coordinates, but not using {{tl:coord}}

• {{Template:Geolinks-buildingscale}}
• {{Template:Geolinks-cityscale}}
• {{Template:Geolinks-naturalfeature}}

Articles that do not need coordinates

I am concerned at the recent indiscriminate tagging, by a bot, for the addition of coordinates, of articles that do not need them. This project's project page makes it clear that the project is about adding coordinates to articles that are about places (emphasis added). Yet the bot added a {{LocateMe}} to The Proms, which is a concert series, not a place. The bot's author has so far not accepted that this was inappropriate.

I have no affinity with the project, but I bring this matter to the attention of those who do. Such lack of discrimination risks bringing the project into disrepute.

Please can the project team reach a policy consensus on what articles should not have coordinates? Philip Trueman 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

From The Proms: "held annually in Central London". Andy Mabbett 21:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages), 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:

1. Template:Coord (protected)
2. Template:Coord/input/d
3. Template:Coor/prec dec
4. Template:Coor dec2dms1
5. Template:Coor dms2dec
6. Template:Precision1
7. Template:Coor link
8. Template:Coor URL (protected)
9. Template:Coord/display/title

Are they a problem? -- User:Docu

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:

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 = {{coor dm|45|26|N|12|19|E}} 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

::When you say that "it's generally preferable to ..." are you discussing your own preferences, or a MOS-issue, or some geo-guideline that I am unaware of? 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:

Please can we keep this discussion relevant to the point in question and not include comments about the use of the brand spanking new {{coord}} 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)

• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists