Wikipedia talk:Geographic references

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Namespace issue

Should this be in the "Wikipedia" namespace? It isn't an encyclopaedia article, after all. Tho it is a sort of appendix to one (well, to several thousand), I suppose, so I'm not sure. --Camembert

Yes and no. For now it belongs in this namespace because it is part of the encyclopedia. It is important to cite the sources of articles and that would have to be included with a printed copy. However, as has been discussed elsewhere, the references really need their own namespace suited to this. Until one is created, we just have to sit it here. At least this is my understanding. A simple redirect later will solve the namespace issues. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities -- RM

There already is some talk about this over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. If it is moved, then the articles should still link to it via Geographic references. IMO we shouldn't be having self-referential links in articles since these would have to be all changed for third parties to use our articles. What really is needed is another type of meta namespace since the Wikipedia:namespace is the place for information about the encyclopedia and really not a good place for information about the articles. --mav

Ah, I'd not been following the WikiProject Cities talk - an extra namespace would indeed be ideal for this sort of thing. Thanks for the explanations. --Camembert
Above discussions are very old (2002). I wonder if there's any policy change after that. Should this article remain in the article namespace ? Jay 17:46, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New York towns

Looking at various articles on places in Westchester County, New York, it seems that many places are being designated towns which are not in fact towns. Some examples: Chappaqua, Hartsdale, Armonk, Crugers. I could go on. Obviously the sources calling these town are incorrect. This map is from Westechester County's official site: http://www.westchestergov.com/planning/research/Census2000/MunicipalProfiles/mun.htm.

[edit] "US" in the article title?

Shouldn't this be "US Geographic references"? Or is just accidental that no non-US references have been included? Ben Arnold 06:03, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Shouldn't NOAA's NGS be included here?

If you have a close idea of the coordinates for a place, the NGS datasheets website is a handy way to identify the exact latitude, longitude, and elevation of particular landmarks within the area in question. The landmarks can be identified by NGS Station Number so people can check their accuracy later. This is especially useful for stations that aren't in any city, such as the tops of mountains.—GraemeMcRaetalk 05:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of county seats

Cambell's List, though commercial in nature, is a very thorough list of county seats. Now that geographical reference 6 has been deleted, is there an alternative?—GraemeMcRaetalk 06:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The document, per [1] is Campbell's List.
--Jerzy•t 10:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcut misuse

The {{Shortcut}} template on this page is misused. The template is used for WP:SHORT, and to quote from the {{Shortcut}} page: "Please do not use this template on other templates, e.g. to state that the shortcut to Template:Foo is in fact {{Foo}}. There's no need to state the obvious like that, each template uses its own name as a shortcut, by default." A better way should be used to list these template names.

[edit] Precision

Wikipedians seem to be fond of locating cities to a precision of 0.1 second of arc, when describing cities which are several minutes of arc across. Is there some way to discrouage this precision, or make certain that the referenced point is something useful like the geographic center of the place or the city hall or something?

I'm not certain where these references come from; what database locates cities this precisely?

I agree. The precision provided by seconds is unnecessary. Each minute is about 1.8 kilometres (1.1 miles). A second is about 30 metres (33 yards). Perhaps seconds should only be used when a dimension of the town is less than 2 kilometres, and when seconds are used they should be rounded to the nearest ten (e.g. "56" -> "60"). Is this acceptable to everyone? Jecowa 21:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved

I swapped the article and the redirect, since in article space this violates WP:ASR. Just zis Guy you know? 17:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Revert

I have reverted the move to Geographic coordinate system. This article is used in many articles as a reference with the Template:GR. Please see Malpura for an example. Look for GRIndia. - Ganeshk (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

so we fix the template, can you assist with that? I see the GR template sending to a disambig page, not here or to Wikipedia:Geographic references, but my browser is acting up and I think I am having cache issues. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Should note for the the template fix is owrking fine, I am looking for confirmation. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The link appears to go through the template to the correct page -- however, as noted elsewhere (I forget where just now) there had been ID tags embedded in the headings that functioned as anchors (i.e., as originally formulated, {{GR|2}} would have taken you to an item identifying the U.S. Census Bureau as the source for such demographic information.) This has not worked since this edit removed them. older ≠ wiser 21:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
As this has nothing to do with the redirect fix, I will consider that matter settled, then? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Things like (grabbing the first one I see) Concord, Michigan link directly to Geographic references, not via a template... Shimgray | talk | 21:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that's just nasty. older ≠ wiser 22:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The redirect has been reverted, because of Rambot generated articles, which I thought linked to GR#2 Which is already broken. However it appears it is a direct link, so another solution will have to be found - the template is fine as is, so that is settled, yes? But the cross-namespace redirect is going to be a pain. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Some solution has to be found. Thousands of articles link to this article through the template. I used {{GR|India}} since the number link was not working. - Ganeshk (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

(reduce) I agree. Currently though the Rambot generated links don't work, and nothing we do to the template will make them work. Restoring the section from Feb will fix the template links, but not the Rambot ones. There is currently a discussion on the mailing list about this - if you have any bright ideas either post to the mailing list or post them here. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the Rambot anchors, using <span id="..." /> as used on WP:CSD for a similar purpose. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move?

Since this article is used as a reference by thousands of articles created by User:Rambot and User:Ganeshbot, I feel this should be in the article space. Please comment. - Ganeshk (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Link?

As of 2006-08-16, the following reference: http://www.nsi.bg/Census/CensusList1.htm (Reference #6 in Geographic_references#References) is yielding a "Cannot Find Server -- Page Cannot be Displayed" message.

Thank you. Someone will check it, and I remind people to not delete references. If the server does not reappear, or if another URL is not found, the reference may become available in an internet archive service in six months or so. (SEWilco 03:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] American Community Survey

Has the issue of the U.S. Census' American Community Survey (ACS) been discussed? This survey method employs a "rolling samples"[2] methodology, which may prove hard to reference with a GR. Still, I see a lot of 2005 ACS demographics being quoted, and it seems like a standard GR should be used. Any suggestions? Brien Clark 07:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing use of superscripts for GR "citations"

Could someone point out where in Wikipedia it was discussed that Wikipedia: Geographic references "citation" links — which aren't really proper citations, but rather insufficiently linked footnotes in another page to often vaguely described but inadequately cited works — should be represented by the same superscripts that are used for more traditional, specific reference citations? It's confusing to a read to see this6 as the first "citation" in an article, and worse to find it doesn't even reflect a reference listed in the article. Since it's an internal wiki link, not a citation, shouldn't it be presented as such? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is being fixed imminently. {{GR}} will just render as refs, and older style links are being migrated. Rich Farmbrough, 17:34 3 April 2008 (GMT).