Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Template:Coord unsourced

{{to do}}

Is it general WP policy that all articles on neighbourhoods, villages, towns, etc., should include their coordinates? Mcljlm (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

:Policy, no; recommendation, yes. If it's a fixed point, it has coords. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The article 2024 Southport stabbing currently shows coordinates are displayed to a precision of 0.1 second of arc. This is ridiculous overprecision, and entirely inappropriate to an article about such a serious subject; coordinates exist to show location, not to identify a particular doorknob. I've added format descriptors to the coord templates, which are only specified as decimals to 4 dp, to no avail; is this something being done by the infobox? If so, it's grotesque. — The Anome (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

:The infobox was using {{tl|Wikidatacoord}} to pull the overprecise coordinates from Wikidata. I've replaced that with coordinates given to four decimal places (copied from the {{tlc|OSM Location map}} template in the infobox, since I myself have no idea exactly where the event occurred). Deor (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to let you know, {{u|The Anomebot2}}, which geocodes articles and adds {{tl|coord missing}} tags, will be on hiatus for a bit, due to hardware failure and lack of time to restore it to operation. Everything is backed up, so nothing is lost, and I will be bringing the service back up in due course, probably running on a cloud instance. — The Anome (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|The Anome}} Since it's been more than three months since the bot has added {{tlc|coord missing}} tags, can you give any information about when it will be running again? Deor (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I have two suggestions regarding to them.

1. Parallel articles should have lists starting at 180th meridian, nor Prime meridian, to avoid splitting of Europe and Africa.
2. French overseas deps should have their own flags used. --40bus (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Just letting anyone interested know that User:Jeeputer/coordInserter is now a thing - it helps with adding coordinates to pages in :Category:Articles missing coordinates with coordinates on Wikidata. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 23:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi. As Suntooooth and I discussed on my talk page, the script mentioned in the thread above can add a template (probably should be created) to indicate that the article with restricted address (such as Anderson Site (Franklin, Tennessee), see the associated Wikidata item) can not have a coord template. The proposed template can prevent people from adding {{tl|coord missing}} again through a Preview warning or an Editnotice.

The actual question is, when coordinates are not present at Wikidata like for the article mentioned above, is it always the case that the address is restricted? In other words, when the item has a {{property|P625}} property, but the property doesn't have coordinates data, should we place a template to indicate that there can't be a {{tlc|coord}} template on the page? Jeeputer ^Talk 05:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

: I would say "definitely not". There is no reason to believe that a missing datum at wikidata means that it has to be missing. Also, it's hard to believe that the number of sites with confidential locations is too many for manual intervention. Zero^talk 12:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, there was a request at WP:BOTREQ for a bot to go through :Category:Articles missing coordinates with coordinates on Wikidata, add the coordinates from wikidata to enwiki article, and remove the {{tl|coord missing}} template [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bot_requests&oldid=1244219112#Regularly_removing_coords_missing_if_coordinates_are_present permalink.] I had created a program to do that but I was notified that there was no clear consensus for the automation of the task. So here I am, trying the gauge the waters: would it be okay to automate the process? If yes, then what should be avoided, be careful of, and what format of the coordinates should be used? I believe if planned properly, this task could be safely automated. Courtesy ping {{ping|Deor|Dawnseeker2000|Suntooooth}} —usernamekiran (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:I've previously expressed an opposition to the indiscriminate importation of coordinates from Wikidata, and my opinion has not changed. A bot's doing it is by definition indiscriminate. Deor (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

::Pinging {{ping|The Anome}}, who I believe has proposed bot importation of coords before. Deor (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:::@Deor I am neutral about the bot run. But I think we should discuss what should be, and shouldn't be done by the bot, and what are the risks. Maybe we can find solution for problematic cases, or skip such cases. I am currently running a very simpler similar task, of removing wikidata QID from enwiki infobox, if it matches with wikidata, in case any doubt, the bot skips the removal and adds such doubtful cases to User:KiranBOT/List of mismatched QID. Maybe we can approach the coords task similarly? —usernamekiran (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

We now have more than 19,000 articles missing coordinates on enwiki that have coordinates on Wikidata. It would seem silly not to do something with that data. But what? Should we manually review all of them and add them bit by bit by hand? Or is there some way to automate the process - for example by comparison with OSM data, where available, to check if the two coordinates are close? — The Anome (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:I am under the impression that the usual way to get Wikidata coord data into a Wikipedia article is by infobox template in the article, pulling the data from the item. This suggests to me an infobox bot putting a location map into the article, thus attracting the attention of any reader who happens to know where the object is, and leading to a WD correction. Incidentally yes, adding WikiShootMe dots to an OpenStreetMaps display would also help. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Comparing with OSM sounds workable, as I've found OSM to be generally reliable. One problem is that OSM may not have locations for individual buildings and such, and its coordinates are frequently overprecise (as are Wikidata coords). A problem with indiscriminately pulling coords from Wikidata is that they will lack type and region parameters. For that reason and others, my opinion is that coordinates almost always benefit from human review. Maybe I just don't trust bots as much as other folk seem to. Deor (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

{{small|Original heading: "Article titles including co-ords as a disambiguator should be strongly, strongly discouraged unless it really is the only way of disambiguating (and even then...)" ―Mandruss ☎ 16:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)}}

I've going through some articles and, sheesh, those locations are very often just wrong, and not only that, almost always, if it's a real place, there's at least something that can be used to disambiguate other than the co-ords.

I think we should give some advice somewhere that we should always disambiguate a location with anything but co-ords if there's a better way of doing (e.g., county, district, province, etc.), and that if you find a map with two places with the same name close together, please consider that there may have been a mistake made somewhere because people aren't normally dumb enough to give their village the same name as one 5 minutes drive away. FOARP (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it isn't a good look. The only time coordinates should be used if there is several places of the same name within the same municipality and there is no way to distinguish them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The coord template currently displays an error when the longitude exceeds 180°, as one might expect for the selenographic coordinate system. In lunar science, however, that is not the only coordinate system in popular use. The selenocentric coordinate system in the sense of easting-only longitude values has overtaken the conventional +180°E/-180°W, thanks to becoming the standard for lunar datasets in 2006.{{cite web |date=2008-05-14 |orig-date=2006-08-23 |author=National Aeronautics and Space Administration |title=A Standardized Lunar Coordinate System for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and Lunar Datasets |version=5 |url=https://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/LunCoordWhitePaper-10-08.pdf |website=NASA |archive-date=2009-03-20 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090320114848/https://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/LunCoordWhitePaper-10-08.pdf}}

For example, the coordinate {{coord|23.7537|312.2210|globe:moon}} displays the message "{{#coordinates:}}: invalid longitude". But the longitude is not invalid, and is understood perfectly by GeoHack. Conversion is easy (subtraction from 360°), but converting entire tables of planetocentric coordinates is tedious when all that has to be done to accommodate what is now the standard practice is to remove an error message carried over from geographic (Earth) standards in the case of globe:moon.

Can anyone with an understanding of the template/module system responsible for producing these error warnings point me to the proper channel for making the desired change? Thank you. Ivan (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}} Ivan (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)