Talk:Myakka City, Florida

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Florida (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida.
If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Unincorporated city[edit]

Why is it called a city if it is unincorporated? 74.4.114.47 (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. It's not the only one; see the village of Dexter City, Ohio, the borough of Ellwood City, Pennsylvania, and the census-designated place of Fall City, Washington for other non-city communities named "City". Nyttend (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Location, location, location[edit]

Why is the location stated FOUR times in this very short article? Seriously, just once will do. Astronaut (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

To quote from Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline#Geography:
"...In the past, standard practice was to include several coordinate instances: one in the infobox, one in Geography (often repeated in several notations), and once in the external links section using a Geolink or Mapit template. Such replication is confusing, uselessly redundant, and creates maintenance complexity. A coordinate formatted by {{coord}} or {{Infobox Settlement}} links to all known map resources, so previous practice is unnecessary." (emphasis added) Astronaut (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This change was made without discussion, and anyway there's only one usage given in my last edit. I oppose the removal of Mapits, but that was apparently made by wide consensus, so I'll not act to preserve them; however, using an undiscussed change to support the removal of something that doesn't even apply is altogether disingenuous. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for being somewhat hasty in my revert, it seems I didn't read the difference closely enough.
From what I have read, it seems there is consensus that having too many geo-links is "confusing, uselessly redundant, and creates maintenance complexity". The authors of the WP:USCITY guideline are not the only ones however. For example, I asked over at Wikipedia talk:GEO#How many coordinates is enough and basically got the answer "[it]...is an old issue but ... two links would be more than adequate normally...".
The fundamental point though is why do you believe having all these extra geo-links is an improvement in the quality of the article? For example, even as this article is now, what purpose does "(27.3497671, -82.1614780)" serve? Until now, why did you oppose the removal of the {{Mapit-US-cityscale}} template when it does the exact same thing as the {{coord}} template (and has done so since at least the beginning of 2008)?
Astronaut (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Consensus perhaps at a general project, but clearly not consensus at this more specific one — projects don't get to dictate to each other. As for the decimal — why not? You'll find decimal coords at tons of sites, whether unreliable ones like fallingrain or reliable ones such as the GNIS reference on this article. It's not a hugely useful thing, but after all, not everyone is super familiar with the fact that coordinates aren't decimalised, so converting it into decimal surely helps the reader. Sometimes it helps those of us who are quite familiar with it but don't feel like doing a conversion; I check the decimalised format sometimes instead of the DMS format. In something as small as this, why would we want not to provide the information given by tons of other sources?
As far as the Mapit — because the link goes to the Toolserver, which is somewhat external, and from there to altogether-external sites, it's an external link. Moreover, it's helpful to have the link at the bottom of the page: say you begin the article, don't care about the coords at the top left or in the infobox, find them interesting in the Geography section, but when you get to the bottom you want to see a satellite view of the immediate area. Nyttend (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
When you select the link the decimal is given directly under the DMS on the Geohack page, one or the other would do. Arguing about having the coordinates at the bottom of the page is moot as it is a stub and you can see both the top and the bottom of the page at the same time. Also from Template:Mapit-US-cityscale
The template {{Mapit-US-cityscale}} is deprecated. Please use {{coord}} instead.
The consensus reached in the guideline at WP:USCITY regarding coordinates in the geography section is part of WikiProject Cities, which this falls under, so I don't understand how you can say that it does not apply, being a stub does not make it any less relevant. And the {{coord}} template links to all known map resources so the mapit template is unnecessary and redundat. Since there is no geography section or infobox maybe we can come to a compromise.
Two sets of coordinates, one in the title, one in the infobox. If there is no infobox (as there is not in this case), coordinates in prose. While personally I dislike decimal degrees following the coordinates in DMS and think it looks bad, they do not actually hurt anything/anyone so decimal degrees may follow the DMS. Any thoughts?--kelapstick (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
That's what we have now in the article and I'm happy with how it is. Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Please don't complain about my arguing: since the decision to remove Mapits was made, I've never given my reasons for opposing it until now, and this time only because I was asked. Nyttend (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See also section[edit]

I recently added the See also article section, to read as follows

Another editor deleted everything except the actual blue links, saying "Don't need the explanation." When I reverted this change, this same editor again reverted me again saying: "This is a see also section, not a discussion of those articles)."

This appears to me to be simply that editor's opinion, since when I look at WP:MOS#See also, I find 18 links to other articles, 17 of which have what would be considered "discussion" of those linked articles. Unless I can get a better reason for the reverts, I will put my language back in. clariosophic (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Clariosophic is correct. The purpose of explaining where the links go is to aid the reader so he or she will not click on them without a good reason. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)