Talk:National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|To-do list for National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency:|
- 1 Vandalism in the article text?
- 2 Geographic/Geospatial
- 3 RfC: Geospatial vs. Geographic
- 4 Death of Osama bin Laden
- 5 File:NGA New HQ.jpg Nominated for Deletion
- 6 Topography, Geology, and Accurate "g": ICBM Guidance in Pre-Satellite Cold War
- 7 Aliases and Redirects of some of the former agencies now in NGIA
- 8 Coordinate error
Vandalism in the article text?
> National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency of kelsey is smexy (NGA) <
Yes, you found a cite that says Geographic, but it is from 2000 and calls NGA NIMA, which is an old name for the agency. I'm all for giving it a second name, saying that it is called geographic in the lead, but seeing as how this is the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, the rest of the article should state Geospatial. Please discuss. Qb | your 2 cents 09:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
RfC: Geospatial vs. Geographic
Lately, I've been trying to pick up the pieces of User:Neogeography who has been changing the word "geospatial" into "geographic" in many articles. It wouldnt be such a big deal, except that he's started changing the content of articles with "geospatial" in the title. I need some help in a) policy and b) explaining the concept of consensus. I've left a message on his talk page as well as one on the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency talk page. Any insight would be gladly appreciated. Qb | your 2 cents 20:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- This one is straightforward. If the editor keeps trying to change the word "geospatial" from this article, it is vandalism and you can report him to WP:AIV. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Death of Osama bin Laden
File:NGA New HQ.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:NGA New HQ.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 2 December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
Topography, Geology, and Accurate "g": ICBM Guidance in Pre-Satellite Cold War
I am wondering where, or even if, the NGIA came into play with respect to the measurement/collection/compilation of the topographical/geological charts that were ultimately synthesized into highly classified sets of extremely accurate geo-topographical (composition+topography) maps that were used to program very accurate guidance systems in ICBMs before satellite guidance was possible. The most important piece of information produced by these maps and data was extremely accurate values for "g" (not G), the gravitational acceleration due to earth's mass at a test point above the earth's surface. Though we often pretend it is nearly constant and only varies by a miniscule amount, in reality its variance due to the mass below such a test point (say due to a mountain range or a deep ocean) is enough to severely limit how precisely a projectile can follow a predetermined path and how accurately it is when it ultimately explodes. Though the NRO deals with satellites and aerial photography, and though its historical predecessors may have been involved in space-based technology and support, it seems more likely that the NGIA (or predecessor) would be involved in this type of program.126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Aliases and Redirects of some of the former agencies now in NGIA
DARO (Defense Airborne Recon Office) is referenced on William Jeffrey (NIST)'s page. A page doesn't exist, and DARO has since become part of this agency (merger mentioned in paragraph 2 of National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) section of this page). I don't know enough about DARO or others to write a page, but perhaps an alias / redirect could point here. ArtDent (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
- You haven't said what's wrong with the coordinates in the article. Although they were overprecise, they appear to be correct. (They certainly correspond to the headquarters building pictured in the infobox.) If you still think that the coordinates are in error, please repost your correction request below, this time including a clear explanation. Deor (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)