LimoWreck - my apologies: I hadn't seen your comments here before I moved the coordinates back to Notes and references again. Anyway, I actually agree with you: having them in the normal text just looks wrong. Thanks for pointing out the German and Portuguese Wikipedias' practise. Those certainly are elegant non-intrusive solutions. Perhaps we should have a straw poll to resolve this. --A bit iffy10:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been promoting this idea for general use at en.wikipedia for the last week, so I would definitely support this. Developer support is necessary to get the required code into Monobook.css, but broad support at the Millionth Article might be enough to make it happen! — Saxifrage✎19:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention that the CSS has been added to a couple of the style sheets this past week, so {{coor title d}}, {{coor title dm}}, and {{coor title dms}} are up and running. {{CoorHeader}} is deprecated.
Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Places WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Titoxd(?!? - help us)18:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Longitude Latitude
I'm new to this whole thing, and i was finding Long Lat co-ordinates for Pilanesberg National Park, some one else was helping me, and i found that depending on where you looked, the co-ordinates were different, I eventually settled with the one on google earth, was this the right thing to do? Philc 078013:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I'm new to this. The article Carnac stones deals with a lot of disparate objects for which the precise locations are, however, known [1]. Is there a way I can tag each of these objects? Or can I only tag the general location of the Carnac stones, accurate to say 20kms? Stevage13:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is only room for one coordinate in the header; use the {{Coor title dm}} template (I think degrees+minutes works best for the size of the given region, perhaps even rounded to the nearest tens of minutes). {{Coor dms}} inserts a coordinate in the text; you can use as many as you want on a page, so this would be appropriate for the individual features. -- Eugene van der Pijll21:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you've got decimal degrees,
{{coor d|47.617800|N|3.065|W|type:landmark}} would save you converting. That produces 47°37′04″N3°03′54″W / 47.617800°N 3.065°W / 47.617800; -3.065. If there are going to be a lot of links on a page, it'd probably look better if you could mask it somehow. Neither an internal nor external link seems to work, but you can put it into a footnote:[1]
No, but I suggest cutting the 00s from the latitudes. Since they all end that way, I don't think the source is really claiming the positions are accurate to 10 cm, it's just some quirk of their system.
I'd like you to point you to a little javascript extension for your monobook.js file. It displays draggable and zoomable maps in geocoded articles (with a little marker at the article coordinates). Check the instalation instructions and give it a test drive :-)
The next step will be AJAX powered insertion of clickable Wikilinks. Check out a live demo (with german wikilinks) here! --Dschwen18:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because it is served from my crappy office desktop? If this gets more response it'll have to be hosted on a better connection, ideally on the wikimedia servers. Btw on the german WP the AJAX links are already fully working. If I get to it tomorrow i'll update the version in en:wp. --Dschwen23:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The new version is available. The map now has clickable links to geocoded articles with little markers at their geographical positions. More links appear gradually when you zoom in. The priority with which they appear is determined by the article length they refer to. --Dschwen10:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization of location
I have just created Wikipedia:Categorization of location, proposing a hierarchy of location-based categories. Once widely employed, these will allow the reader to quickly find articles about locations that are near that described by the article they're currently reading. All feedback welcome, as always. AxelBoldt03:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything which can be done about the faux-precise locations of cities? It appears that some of the publically available sources people use for coordinates are precise to tenths of seconds of arc, which is somewhere on the order of 3m (10 ft). Unless the data is showing the City Hall (at that precision, perhaps the Mayor's private bathroom in City Hall?), or the geographic center of the municipal boundaries of the city, it seems that one minute of arc precision is all that is necessary to locate even most small villages. Perhaps tens of seconds would be required in locations where villages are small and closely spaced. Many cities are tens of minutes across in at least one dimension. Argyriou20:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some of that could be accomplished with a bot. The bot could access the pages at, say, Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Coor dms, and round off the coordinate values if the parameter "type:city" is present. But rounding off to the nearest minute might be too coarse in certain cases, for example if the coordinates point to the city hall or the city center. --Opie22:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe a change could be made to the template itself, so that any pair of coordinates followed by the parameter "type:city" would automatically be rounded off. --Opie22:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why metadata content?
I know that coordinates are extremly useful for any geographical article and this is what makes Wikipedia unique. But could you give me a rationale about why it's included as a metadata content? Why could it be included in the main text, in the lead or in an infobox? Metadata content is hard to find for the new reader, and conflicts with some other content in the same area like the little FA star or the top announcement (like the current one: Early registration for Wikimania 2006 is open until July 9. Scholarships are available; applications are due by June 28.). Thank you. CG08:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just recently become interested in geographic coordinates, and the work you guys are doing is certainly very impressive. :)
I was just wondering how people generally handle the problem of areas such as countries and rivers, well even oceans too, most things. Representing them by a precise dot certainly seems wrong, even if the map is way "zoomed out" (so it's a very huge dot)...I read a bit here about using a "bounding box" but that still doesn't seem very precise. Is this really the best method that we've come up with to describe areas? Are there alternative (if uncommon) methods out there? I'm curious. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following is the result of taking Wikipedia's category links and the NIMA GNS data, and rubbing vigorously. With a number of quite cautious validation checks applied to both datasets, this gives an unambigious location for 12660 out of a possible 28628 (44%) articles about non-US cities, towns and villages.
The results are sorted by country, then place, and binned into four files. They have also been compared to the data in Koordinaten_en_CSV.txt, and labelled by whether they are new coordinates (NEW), or duplicate coordinates already in articles (dup), and, if so, whether they are exact duplicates, or if not, roughly how many km out they are. (The distance calculation uses several approximations, so treat it only as an order-of-magnitude figure).
I would be interested in a list with cities/towns/villages where our coordinates differ form the GNS ones by more than, say, 10km; sorted by country, if possible. I'm working on Dutch villages mainly, and such a list would be a good help to correct coordinates. (If its wikipedia that is wrong. The GNS database does contain errors.) Eugène van der Pijll19:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, GNS is not the cleanest dataset I've ever seen. Eugène, can you point me at a single resource where I can get the existing coordinate/article data in an easy-to-process machine-readable format? If you can, I'd be happy to crunch the numbers. -- The Anome20:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That looks exactly like what I was looking for. I'll take a look... interim result: it seems that of the locations I found, 2959 are for articles with coordinates in en: already, so 9701 of the data points appear to be genuinely new. I'll post the deltas for the 2959 duplicates tomorrow. -- The Anome02:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at some of the more massive outliers in the error reports above suggests that there are significant errors in Koordinaten_en_CSV.txt: for example, on the Birdwood, South Australia page, Koordinaten_en_CSV.txt has
Birdwood, South Australia -34,819 -138,965 landmark
The article and Google maps both agree with my data. The other dramatic outliers in Australia also seem to be the same problem.
-- The Anome11:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there was a problem with the collation of data from pages that used {{Geolinks-AUS-suburbscale}}, which Birdwood does. There are two large concentrations of places in the eastern Pacific that should be near Sydney and Adelaide, as well as a few other places from that template. --Scott DavisTalk13:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some further spotchecking of points with large reported discrepancies (> 100km) against the existing data, (see User:The Anome/Geodata - outliers gt. 100 km) using MultiMap, Google and Yahoo! Maps. The five randomly-chosen points I've looked at so far all suggest that the GNS data is correct to within a couple of km or less from the marked map feature. This is better than I expected: but you're right, Arnia is way off. -- The Anome14:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! I thought I had that cracked: the heuristic I used was that the page had to be the only one of that name in the country (as found by following the category tree upwards), and that there was only one record of that name in that country in the GNS, after various other heuristics had been employed to deal with naming conventions, etc. I can have a go at tracking it down, but not until I've got some more free time. I haven't yet used the subnational region category data, which will require another level of heuristics to tie CC1 ADM1 to Wikipedia subnational regions, but I'll also give that a go next time. -- The Anome16:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, at the moment I am 600 km away from my computer. Tomorow I am back and cheak this problem. In the last month I change my program. I write the complete source code new. Now I have a perl script. 99 % of error I have found, but not all. At friday I upload an new Koordinaten_en_CSV.txt, because I forget the minus in the south hemisphere. I write a new part of my script which test the both coordinates from EN and DE. The Result is interessting. Only 800 coordinates have more then 2000m difference in EN and DE. In the next week I will present a new international CSV-dataset. They include the coordinate with the articlename in eigth important languages. So everybody can produce a KML for spanish or russia wikipedia. If you find more errors or you have question, please write my. I will try my best to fix it. ;-) -- Stefan Kühn21:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's good news, Stefan. The more we all work together, the better the results will be. Please let me know when your new, improved dataset is ready, and I'll re-run my program. In the meantime, I'll work on finding and fixing my remaining false disambiguation bugs. -- The Anome21:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've found my bug: I was only counting standard (N) and canonical (C) names; the correct Arnia was listed as a variant (V) name, and got missed out, creating the false appearance of a unique name.-- The Anome21:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I've found and fixed another bug: this one affected the formatting of templates places with missing-leading-zero degree, or degree-and-minute, values. I've regenerated the listings above accordingly. -- The Anome01:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
