Template talk:Coord

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Template:Infobox mountain problem[edit]

Can anyone explain why, at precisely 13:42 UTC, 27 October 2014, recompilations of Template:Infobox mountain started displaying a blown Coordinates field. I made a minor edit to Mount Princeton at 13:41 UTC with no problems. When I made a similar edit to Mount Yale at 13:42 UTC, "[" appeared in the Coordinates field. Subsequent edits to other articles invoking Template:Infobox mountain produced similar results. You can reproduce this by editing Mount Princeton and then immediately invoking Show preview without making any changes to the article. Neither Template:Infobox mountain, nor Template:Infobox coord, nor Template:Coord were altered during this period. I am stumped. Thanks for your help.  Buaidh  15:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Coordinates_display_appears_to_be_broken
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.  Buaidh  15:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
@Buaidh: You posted the same problem in three different places; please see WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Page status indicators[edit]

FYI: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Page_status_indicators ed g2stalk 23:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

displaying globe icon but neither coordinate?[edit]

Sometimes, I think, it might be useful to display the "globe" icon in-line, as a clickable hyperlink to the usual geohack page, but without displaying the actual coordinates, either in-line or in the title bar.

The example that got me thinking about this, though it's a relatively trivial one, is the page Boston Manufacturing Company Housing. This page, for whatever reason, concerns two historic buildings about half a mile apart. It's not clear how to properly geocode such an article, but my thinking was that ideally I would:

  • have the coordinates in the {{Infobox NRHP}} template, and therefore the coordinates in the title bar, be a lower-precision point roughly halfway between the two buildings
  • in the running text, "historic residential housing blocks at 380-410 and 153-165 River Street", have it appear as
historic residential housing blocks at 380-410WMA button2b.png and 153-165WMA button2b.png River Street
with the icons linked to more-precise locations for each of the two locations (as I have simulated).
Currently, if I were to use the {{Coord}} template with its display=inline option, this would appear as
historic residential housing blocks at 380-41042°22′26.6″N 71°13′53.7″W / 42.374056°N 71.231583°W / 42.374056; -71.231583 and 153-16542°22′14.1″N 71°13′19.8″W / 42.370583°N 71.222167°W / 42.370583; -71.222167 River Street
which obviously looks terrible.

So is there, or could there, or should there be a way to do this? —Steve Summit (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

historic residential housing blocks at 380-410[a] and 153-165[b] River Street
Steve Summit, have you considered wrapping them in an {{efn}}? this would mean the text is still available for a print version, but in a notes section, and anyone with a modern browser could get them by hovering over the note. Frietjes (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
That would work! Nice idea. Thanks.
I still think there's a place for a lower-impact invocation of the {{coord}} template. I was thinking it would be straightforward to add an option display=icononly. I was thinking of making a sandbox copy of this template and trying to prototype it myself, but, man, that code is opaque! So maybe not just now. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Coordinates[edit]

Way to distinguish cities from their neighborhoods?[edit]

In the table for coordinate_type city can be used for both cities and neighborhoods. Therefore, if you search by coordinates, is there no way to distinguish between the two (concepts)? NyirNyir (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The list of supported types is pretty small, and not comprehensive. But that's not a problem (so I gather), because the coord template is not really the place to be definitively categorizing a location. On Wikipedia, the detailed type of an article's subject is generally found in the infobox and/or the lead sentence. And then there's an even more definitive and comprehensive database relating things, types, and locations (among many other attributes) germinating over at Wikidata. So trying to improve the coord template to be able to capture a location's type more accurately would be unnecessary and perhaps even counterproductive. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I was made aware of wdq for Wikidata, so I'll play around with that I guess. For the detailed type on the article itself, AFAIK that's not machine readable (apart from not being available from the geo API)? Anyway, thanks for the info. NyirNyir (talk) 12:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected move request on 25 December 2014[edit]

I think move this page "Template:Coord" to "Template:Coordinates" is better because this name show on the template. 333-blue 11:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Have you established a consensus to make this move? If so, where?
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Achieving consensus could be difficult.
1. There are nearly a million uses of {{coord}}.
2. Template:coordinates redirects to template:coord. There are only 56 uses of the former.
3. There are several bots and thousands of editors accustomed to {{coord}}.
4. Coord was established as the official template mid-2008, replacing a plethora of templates: {{coor title d}}, {{coor title dm}}, {{coor title dms}}, {{coor d}}, {{coor dm}}, {{coor dms}}, {{coor at d}}, {{coor at dm}}, {{coor at dms}}, and probably several others.
EncMstr (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)