Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Archive 14

Maplinks and FritzpollBot

A bot was recently approved (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/FritzpollBot) to create stubs for many locations.

Oddly it appears to insert map links in addition to the coordinates in these stubs, e.g. Ghumay. Given that the article has coordinates, both seem redundant. -- User:Docu

Is this related to WP:GEOBOT somehow? Are stubs normally created with so little information? It's all around confusing to never have heard of such a project before! Hasn't User:The Anomebot2 been importing coordinates from GNS already? Or was it only for existing articles? Both external links the bot has added seem useless to me and not at all in line with WP:EL: The Maplandia site only has a small Google Maps window in the middle of ads and minimal information that's in the article already, why link to it from so many articles if the data comes from GNS anyway? The other link to MSN Encarta atlas has a nice globe, but none of the links lead to anything but the general view, and so having a bot add general links to MSN Encarta seems counterproductive for Wikipedia's goals as an encyclopedia. The operator seems to be on a wikibreak at the moment, but these filler external links need to be dropped for the next run. Has anyone here ever heard of this project? --Para (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, yeah, why didn't anyone announce such a bot on WikiProject Geographical coordinates? Hard links to map providers are a bad idea(tm), just as we don't link all ISBNs to Amazon but to a page similar to the geohack. This should definitely be rectified before that bot goes into regular operation. --Dschwen 03:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, talk about being late to the train, really!! Look at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/FritzpollBot (don't miss the pulldown), and all the FritzpollBot messages on wikien-l in early June! People are saying exactly the same things as we just did here, like "the external links for the map should go to a more neutral locations (geohack, not maplandia and encarta)"[1], and also that "Fritzpoll has already agreed that those links are problematic and won't be included, if I understand him correctly"[2]. Would be good to get confirmation on that, unless I missed something else somewhere else again? --Para (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, looking a the VP discussion, the concerns mentioned here indeed seem to be covered already: the community thinks the size of the stubs is fine, "Maplandia will not be used in this new proposal"[3] and "The first job of the new WikiProject will be to clean up the existing articles, adjust the source to point at a more precise location, and remove the Encarta links that I know you feel strongly about."[4]

One thing I'm still wondering about is the referencing of coordinates. The Anome has been importing coordinate databases using the source parameter in coordinate templates, and not the usual Wikipedia citation format. I'm not sure which is better, but it would be good to hear some opinions on that here. Anyway, if links are given, they should then be direct (maybe that's what "the source to point at a more precise location" means, though I'd interpret it as more precise coordinates), ie. instead of the general link in the Ghumay article to NGA GeoName Database search interface, link to the Ghūmay record directly. --Para (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In general

As a related note, User:Zyxw has created Template:HybridMapLink, which is a template that gives an external link randomly out of many services, basically a GeoHack in template form. Any thoughts on that? Should the use of such a template be promoted, should it exist at all, should it be done with a toolserver tool that uses the Map sources list, or should such blind one-click-to-external-services just not be done? --Para (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WTF?!! A randomly selected link?! What got would that do except easing the users conscience with some weird concept of fairness toward the map providers. This should be crushed by elephant. It is useless and we should once and for all discourage the one-click-to-external-service concept. --Dschwen 12:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, if anyone really wants to have a shortcut to GoogleMaps or whatever, I'm working on a configurable QuickLink(tm) feature for the WikiMiniAtlas. Activate it for testing like so. --Dschwen 19:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of the architecture for a thing like that, and it occurred to me that why implement GeoHack again in Javascript, when it would be possible to use the existing framework as a redirector with only small changes. This would be similar to the wgs2tky conversion tool that's used on Template:GeoTemplate to introduce new variables that GeoHack doesn't support at the moment. The Javascript part could simply let the user choose a service and link the choices to a yet-to-be-implemented redirector mode in GeoHack. To make the list of choices community editable, they could be on a wiki somewhere as pairs of service id, service url with {parameters} similar to how they're on GeoTemplate now. That list could then be fetched with Javascript so that the redirector requests would be of the type redirector?lat,lon&url=maps.service.domain/?q={latdegdec},{londegdec}, or fetched on server side with the requests like redirector?lat,lon&service=mapservice. This way the Javascript part wouldn't have to understand anything about parameter replacement or complex conversions. How's that? --Para (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea. I'd definetely go for redirector?lat,lon&service=mapservice to avoid any exploitability though. This should be easy to implement. --Dschwen 14:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but in addition to Zyxw I have seen two other users loudly pushing for a link to "any map" [5][6]. The first one has a good account on the mindset of this supposed group of people. Do they represent a significant number of our readers? A one-click GeoHack in Javascript sounds useful to these editors, but are they just thinking of their own habits, however narrow they may be, and reflecting them on everyone else? I personally don't understand how someone could not get accustomed to a specific service, be it for maps or anything else, but is it just me then? Is awareness of all the available information online what we should aim for, and how could that be done? I just found recently that in Google Earth you can see full screen Street View images outside the US in some places, and it would be great to let people know of that, but where could we advertise all the available services in such a detailed way? Or is that just outside Wikipedia's goals as a project of free content? --Para (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Confusing for the non-expert user

I tried to add coordinates for Shanghai_Jiao_Tong_University. For a non-expert, this is not an easy task. First of all, the format. There are two formats, coor and coord. Can't you just settle for one? I don't really care about the difference, just tell me the one I should use. I assumed that coord is the newer one and used it. Second, where to put the info? I added it in the info box (coordinates=31°12′3″N 121°25′47″E|). However, it is not displayed in the article. Did I do something wrong? Simplifying the manual (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Geographical_coordinates) could help: tell us where to put what.

Response

Responding to IP address 202.120.34.22 comment posted immediately above:

I went ahead and updated the Shanghai Jiao Tong University article, with:

• coor={{coord|31|12|3|N|121|25|47|E|region:CN_type:edu|display=inline,title|name=Shanghai Jiao Tong University}}|

The issue or problem was that {{Infobox University}} uses "coor=" for the field; and the one which was there was "coordinates=".

In general, {{coord}} is the "preferred" template. I added "region:CN" (assuming "CN" is the ISO-3166 2-character abbreviation for China?

which helps some "map readers" pull up the appropriate map. "display=inline,title" tells it to display them where the {{coord}} template is,

as well as in the Wiki article "title" bar at the top of the page (where Google and other mapping/search services looks for coordinates).

"name=" supplies a label or name which some maps use to label the "pushpin" or mark on the map.

Yes, there are "too many choices", and they should at least give a "best" or "recommended" example at the start for the majority of Wiki contributors.

Not all Infobox templates accept a {{coord}} (or other "Geo") template,

There are those Infoboxes which require separate lat and long degrees, minutes, seconds, and direction fields.

I am not sure if there is any easy way to deal with those? and

There are some which do not have a specific "coordinates" field,

Sometimes coordinates can be placed in a more general text field like "Location" and it might work.

LeheckaG (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I updated SJTU with:

• coor={{coord|31|12|3|N|121|25|47|E|region:CN-31_type:edu|display=inline,title|name=Shanghai Jiao Tong University}}|

which is a more specific "region:" code. ISO_3166-1_alpha-2 confirms the "CN" means China, and leads one to ISO_3166-2,

which in turn leads one to ISO_3166-2:CN and "CN-31" means "Shanghai".

LeheckaG (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Also depending on how accurate your coordinates are, you probably want to set "_scale:" (similar to type:),

probably to 10,000? Since "type:edu" is an "undefined" type in GeoHack - it defaults to 300,000. (unless someone updates GeoHack with default scales for the new types (like "edu") which were "arbitrarily" added... LeheckaG (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

LeheckaG, thanks for the answer. I did not realize that the coord template needs to be "registered" in the infobox. Thanks also for the info about "display=inline,title" and "name". This should be added to the manual. I'm still unsure where to put further "coord" templates. Anywhere in the text or in the infobox? If I put the info somewhere in the text, I would avoid the dependency of the infobox, wouldn't I? Does the place mater?

Response

The "main" coordinates in an article (if there are more than one) should have the "display=inline,title" parameter,

usually any others should have only "inline" (which is the default - so "display=inline" does not need to be specified on the others).

Just make sure that you put "display=inline,title" on only one (the main one).

For instance, many geographic "linear" features actually "branch out";

The "mouth" (main artery, like of a river) is considered to be the "main" coordinate.

The "origin" or "source" are considered secondary coordinates.

In general, the "best" or preferred place(s) for the {{coord}} template are:

• In the Infoxbox, if it has some form of coord((inate)(s)) field; or

• if an Infobox does not have a specific coord/coordinate(s) field, then it can be placed in a "text" field like "Location".

• In a (Wiki-)table of other coordinates, for instance "List of ..." articles or sections.
• Inline within a "Geography" or "Location" sub-section, where an article's geography or location are other wise described.
• Last choice (which many "legacy" articles seem to be) is at or near the bottom of the page (like External links in some U.S. cities).

The goals are to get the main coordinates:

• into the article's title bar (so that the article appears on Google and other maps), and
• on the first or top-most "screen-full", so that they are "consistently" where readers can find them there.

LeheckaG (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:HybridMapLink

Template:HybridMapLink has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — NE2 12:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

type:state, adm1st, adm2nd

As the US has states (type:state), US counties should they use "type:adm1st"? -- User:Docu

Yes, It is reasonable to use type:adm1st for U.S. "Counties" or "Boroughs", and type:adm2nd for U.S. "Townships" (whether civil subdivisions or Public Land Survey System ones). Keep in mind the (original) intent appears to be to a "shortcut" to set the scale, so check to make sure that the selected scale (see the tables above) roughly corresponds to what is being viewed. For instance, even though Alaska and Rhode Island are both type:state, they differ in scale by 1:429, so at least one of the should have a more appropriate scale: parameter also specified. The same will go for U.S. counties, where "The Unorganized Borough, Alaska" is several hundred thousand square miles (most of Alaska) versus whatever the smallest U.S. county is either: Kalawao_County,_Hawaii or Arlington_County,_Virginia depending on whether you do not or do count territorial water in their areas. The largest and smallest counties differ in scale by 1:10,000. I understand why you would want to use "type:" for additional types not currently specified in the ToolServer.Org source code implementation to further clarify what kind of coordinate - but someone really needs to update ToolServer.Org for any new types where the default scale of 1:300,000 is not appropriate.

LeheckaG (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will add that to the type description. As for the new type, if we agree on the scales to define, it should be easy to add them to the toolserver. -- User:Docu

Also or - "Parishes", Louisiana's version of an Alaskan Borough or U.S. County. Townships (in the PLSS sense above are either 5 or 6 miles by 5 or 6 miles) and are initially numbered "Township number Direction, Range number Direction, alpha Meridian" by the land survey and often later "named". For instance, the Port of Anchorage (Alaska) spans "Townships 13 and 14 North, Ranges 3 and 4 West, Seward Meridian" and the Port of Cleveland (Ohio) spans "Townships 7 and 8 North, Ranges 12 and 13 West, Connecticut Western Reserve Meridian". Alaska (surveying) just goes by the "numbers"; in Ohio most of the (PLSS) Townships were later named, sometimes the later civil subdivision boundaries align with the PLSS surveyed Township boundaries, and other times they do not. LeheckaG (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Scales for new types

I added sample scales for the types that aren't yet defined in geohack (see WP:GEO#type:T).

Please feel free to improve them. I hope that eventually they will be added to geohack. -- User:Docu

Thanks Docu. I'll check them out. Spencer^T♦C 14:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

They are active now. -- User:Docu

Request a map to be made?

Is there a place to request a map to be made for a project? I want a clean SVG map of Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area to use for various Infoboxes. Considering Google is copyrighted how are people suppose to implement maps? .:davumaya:. 12:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. Spencer^T♦C 14:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

PD sources

As Spencer suggested, WP Maps would be a good place to ask.

What "level of detail" (map features) are you looking for?

In general, U.S. (Federal) Government works are "Public Domain" (there are a few exceptions). For a Minneapolis-St. Paul map, you might be able to find a .GIF, .JPG, .PNG graphic from local or state government. If you find such, and can find what kind of copyright/license might apply, then you are best off uploading it as a .JPG or .PNG graphic to (WikiMedia) Commons. To generate a true .SVG (scalable vector graphic), as opposed to a "SVG" wrapper around a bit-map, you need (point and vector) data from a GIS (Geographic Information System, most are in downloadable in one of the various ESRI "proprietary" formats) and then you need the tools to take that data and create a .SVG out of it. You can find U.S. federal government GIS data from the USGS, US Census Bureau, NOAA, US Army Corps of Engineers, ... lots of federal government agencies which have produced "maps". For a couple Wiki articles, I needed to find out the rough boundaries of a U.S. Census tract (which are downloadable as ESRI files), I was able to extract the corner or turning coordinates out of the file and use some Wiki tools like:

• {{GeoGroupTemplate}} to produce a link to a list of coordinates on a Google map,
• {{Location map+}} and {{Location map~}} to produce a "crude" plot of coordinates on a Wiki article page.

From the .SVG file sizes which I have seen (they should be much smaller), many are either bit-maps encapsulated in a SVG wrapper (which is the "wrong" way) or generated by software which does not do a very good job of "optimizing" them (i.e. lots of unnecessary .SVG file contents/size). The same can be said for CSS (cascading style sheet) files - most should be smaller than they are (if either hand-coded or through better optimization by the programs which write them). LeheckaG (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Too many coordinates

Take a look at this article. Within the first few inches of the page, the coordinates are given 3 separate times (each time with a separate globe icon to click on). I would say that half of the location articles out there now have at least two sets of coordinates at the beginning of the article - once in the title bar and once in the infobox, then often once again in the body text. Can we institute some kind of guidelines on which of these locations should take precedence? There is no reason to have so much redundant information in our articles. Kaldari (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur that most articles should not have coordinates outside of:

• {{Geobox}} or {{Infobox}},
• Title bar,
• Table or list of coordinates relevant to the article

With (2) exceptions, where:

• article discusses relevant nearby or similarly-named features and a list of table does not seem appropriate
• {{Geobox}} or {{Infobox}} "defect", where {{Coord}} additional/optional (|region:US-XX_type:landmark_scale:50000_source:GNIS|display=inline,title|name=) ... parameters cannot be supplied.

I have seen where:

• (For example) WP Cities initially recommended that coordinates be placed under "External links" (not really realizing that the same functionality was in the Title bar and {{Geobox}}/{{Infobox}}); WP Cities has since updated their recommendations.
• Coordinates were placed in-line (text) primarily because of a {{Geobox}}/{{Infobox}} defect, either:

• not "automatically" appearing in the title bar or
• showing up on a {{GeoGroupTemplate}} map with a number instead of a name.

• I have less frequently seen region, scale (or type) parameters be the reason (but they should be set more often than not), i.e. many coordinate links do not provide the region map "hint" (so that an appropriate collection of map links can be supplied), and many coordinates do not have the appropriate scale set (so that the feature is clearly and completely visible - one should not have to zoom in or out to initially see the feature). I am "guilty among others for not setting an appropriate scale.

The technical reason behind Coordinates being both in a {{Geobox}} or {{Infobox}} AND a Title bar is that:

• the Title bar's "audience" is primarily external reader programs and sites which "skim" Wiki articles (for instance how Google places Wiki articles on Google Earth or Google Maps)
• {{Geobox}} or {{Infobox}} primary "audience" is the actual human article readers - for a summary of the "important" details

LeheckaG (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen inline coordinates in the "geography" sections of many articles. I would feel confortable leaving them there...the coordinates template bring up maps and such, so leaving them there feels appropriate to me. Spencer^T♦C 11:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and an example: Cleveland, Ohio...more direct link: Cleveland,_Ohio#Geography. Spencer^T♦C 11:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't buy it for exactly the same reason as we have only a single wikilink to another article, on the first occurrence of the anchor. It would be quite possible in the geog section to provide a verbal description of its location and expect users to pick up coord data from the top of the page or the infobox. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Geobox/Infobox

As I cited above, some {{Geobox}} and {{Infobox}} templates do not accept a coordinates template, like {{Coord}}, but rather usually accept separate named latitude and longitude degrees fields (both with additional, optional and separate minutes and seconds fields) and directions (N/S and E/W). They build up coordinates rather than parsing them.

I have seen a "rare?" instance where at least one Geobox/Infobox also accepted an optional parameters field where display,name,region,type,scale,source could also be supplied. I ran into the issue of supplying the pipe character as part of the parameter string instead of a separator to the next field, which I got around the issue by instead supplying a ('&') ampersand character which the ToolServer.Org map interface uses for its separator character. I am not sure whether I should have used {{!}} or | instead, but supplying the single ('&') ampersand character worked.

I propose that we start off with a place (Table) to note down which Geobox/Infobox templates "work properly" allowing the flexibility (i.e. which set of coordinates flows through to the Title bar) and the additional/optional parameters, and which do not. Followed by recommendations to the "broken" template authors of similar Geobox/Infobox templates which "work properly" so that they can make the same modifications so that theirs work as well.

For instance, I "experimented" with the new/revised "Geobox 2": {{Geobox}} template to create a couple "Port of ..." articles using "Geobox|Port". {{Geobox}} contains more than one type of feature, and so multiple coordinates can be entered in the same Geobox/Infobox, but then the problem of which gets displayed in the Title bar arises, by default they "All?" do. There is an optional parameter to turn off the "main" coordinates from being displayed in the Title bar, and then it turns out that actually turns them All off from being displayed in the Title bar. So it is "all or none" (when I tried), I ended up turning them All off, and specifying the "main" coordinates elsewhere (which creates the "too many coordinates" situation above).

So if we can note down which Geobox/Infobox "work" and which do "not" in a table, then maybe we can get the "broken" Geoboxes/Infoboxes updated? LeheckaG (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Geobox/Infobox table

Geobox/Infobox coordinates (and map) recommendations and comments:

Name	Redirects	Recommendation	Example	Comments
{{Geobox}}		lat_d=, long_d=, lat_NS=, long_EW=, coordinates_format=, coordinates_type=region:US-XX_type:landmark__scale=50000_source:GNIS (optional lat_m=, lat_s=, long_m=, long_s=); map=, map_caption=, map_background=, map_locator=; additional/optional (capital_, highest_, lowest_, source_, source1_, source_confluence_, and mouth_) can be prefixed to the lat/long fields above for additional coordinates.		I had used the ('&') character: What is the "best" way to append name= to coordinates_type= ({{!}} or |)? "BUG:" If coordinates_no_title=1, coordinates_format=, coordinates_type are specified, then they apply to "ALL" (i.e. if "Main" and other coordinates, then "All or none" behavior).
{{Infobox Airport}}		{{Coord}} with "display=inline,title" in "coordinates=" field, additional relevant coordinates can be supplied without default "display=inline" in (city-served=) text field followed by descriptive text		Two Infobox images (one can be a map)
{{Infobox Bridge}}	{{Infobox bridge}}	{{Coord}} with "display=inline,title" in "coordinates=" field; map_cue=, map_image=, map_text=, map_width=
{{Infobox lake}}	{{Infobox Lake}}	{{Coord}} with "display=inline,title" in "coords=" field, additional relevant coordinates can be supplied without default "display=inline" in (inflow=, outflow=, max-depth, islands=, cities=) text fields followed by descriptive text		Single Infobox image file, no dedicated Infobox map
{{Geobox River}}	{{Geobox river}}	switch to {{Geobox}} with River parameter
{{Infobox River}}	{{Infobox river}}	{{Coord}} with "display=inline,title" in "Mouth=" field followed by descriptive text, and {{Coord}} without default "display="inline" in "Origin=" field followed by descriptive text		Single Infobox image file, no dedicated Infobox map
{{Geobox Settlement}}	{{Geobox City}} {{Geobox Town}}	switch to {{Geobox}} with Settlement parameter
{{Infobox Settlement}}	{{Infobox settlement}}	latd=, latNS=, longd= longEW= (and optional latm=, lats=, longm=, longs=); pushpin_map=, pushpin_label_position=, pushpin_mapsize=, pushpin_map_caption=		"Broken" with regard to region, type/scale, name parameters

LeheckaG (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes commonly exist for objects of similar type, which with coordinates allows the same parameters for all the uses of the infobox. They are also commonly for the article's main object, so associating the coordinates with another name shouldn't be necessary. I don't think these mysterious Geobox templates have been discussed here before and I'm not sure what they're for. If they're the main cause of the problems mentioned, then perhaps a short introduction on their differences with infoboxes would be in order?

Anyway, following User:The Anome/Infobox audit and a discussion about the inconsistencies about a year ago, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Geographical coordinates and the guidance in this project now instructs people to use a common set of templates and infobox parameters, but there hasn't been anything organised yet to make infoboxes conform to that style. The issue isn't just how the templates are rendered in HTML or whether the coordinates eventually end up near the title, but how they are entered in the wikitext that is read by reusers of Wikipedia coordinate data. When they are all entered the same way, standardising the display shouldn't be difficult. --Para (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• "name=" One goes from a Wiki article to a map through ToolServer.Org either by clicking on Coordinates or the {{GeoGroupTemplate}} "Map of all coordinates" which "pushpins" each coordinate in an article. Often the "article name" does not flow through to the map, either the plotted point on a map is unnamed or many numbered (and not named) pushpins are seen. "name=" is useful to provide a clue in either case. Which article or feature was I looking at? Is this a river's mouth or its origin/source?
• I am not sure whether {{Geobox}} or {{Infobox}} came first, but they produce similar functionalities for the reader. Apparently the older Geoboxes were similar to Infoboxes with each "Type" being a separate template - which resulted in a similar "many flavors/styles" of Geoboxes and Infoboxes. {{Geobox}} underwent a transformation at some point creating "Geobox 2" - a documentation/version change, where all the Geobox functionalities (for any feature/type) are provided by one single template. Which makes it easy to create a "new" Geobox for a WikiProject usually without coding or modifying a template. Since there is one Geobox template (which superseded the other separate ones) it has the same look and feel, field names, functionality, ... across "types". In comparison, there are many different Infoboxes, with different field names ("coord=" in one, "coordinates=" in another, ...) different functionalities (one image, two images, no images, map, "automatic map", ...) I am not a total Geobox proponent - I see a few Geobox "defects" and some Infobox advantages, but I am a proponent of the method/standardization which Geobox "2" underwent.
• I have seen where both Geobox and Infobox templates have "problems" (why we should have such a table documenting the various Geobox/Infobox "flavors", and how they handle (or should handle) coordinates/maps. Little annoyances like different field names, formats, functionality, ... should become apparent in flushing then out, they perhaps we can have some guidance like coordinates field should be named ..., and point those out to all the ones which vary from a recommendation/standard. I will take a look at the Infobox Audit cited above.LeheckaG (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Templates

• Personally, I prefer to see one flexible template with parameters (like Coord) be recommended rather than many other separate templates (Coor, Coor at d, Coor at dm, Coor at dms, Coor title d, Coor title dm, Coor title dms, ...) I am not aware of something which can be done with the other templates which cannot be done by supplying appropriate parameters to Coord. If someone can cite an implementation/technical reason why many separate templates are "better", I would like to know what it is?

LeheckaG (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Coordinate fields

Field names aside - looking at User:The Anome/Infobox audit which was cited above by another, there are several naming variations.

Structurally, Does the Wiki community have a preference for either?

• "coordinates=" field, containing one of the coordinates family of templates which emits a Geo MicroFormat
• two separate latitude and longitude fields (not sure how coordinates are coded/specified?)
• separate latitude and longitude degrees and direction fields, along with optional minutes and seconds fields (where the GeoBox/Infobox builds the Geo MicroFormat)

My personal preference is for a "coordinates=" field containing separate latitude and longitude degrees,minutes,seconds parameters, BUT I also have a preference for an "automatic map" in an article's Geobox/Infobox. Most of the Wiki automatic "locator" or "pushpin" Geobox/Infobox maps which I have seen so far rely on separate latitude and longitude degree (not sure whether they also look at minutes and seconds) fields (rather than parsing out the latitude and longitude from a Geo MicroFormat). If someone has a way for a Geobox/Infobox locator or pushpin map to accept the Geo MicroFormat output by one of the coordinates family of templates, then I do not see a good reason for separate degree,minutes,seconds fields rather than a "coordinates=" field and any of the Geo MicroFormats templates? Getting rid of all the separate fields would simplify maintenance and field naming.

My preference for an "automatic map" is that it would be burdensome to create individual maps for many articles, whereas a more generalized state or county map with a "pushpin" mark on it is usually sufficient. Generally one larger scale map is easier to create and maintain than many small ones, unless a smaller scale map is beneficial or needed for certain features. For the U.S., there are already Locator maps for each State. A dot plotted on State map gives one a rough idea, but not enough information about the locality. If beneficial such Locator maps can also be created for Boroughs/Counties/Parishes or some more notable (surveyed) Townships. I believe it is more beneficial to dynamically overlay a static background map template based on specified coordinates (see how {{Location map+}} and {{Location map~}} work, rather than to create a whole bunch of "... dot on ..." image files which I have seen. LeheckaG (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)