Template talk:Coord

Why this?
We already have Template:Geo, so why is this thought necessary? Pashley (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * geo is one-per-page, not one-per-landmark. I suppose you could try listing but no, this is not geo rehashed. K7L (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As K7L says, this is for inline use. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Display
It looks like this template just adds the text "Geographical coordinates: 42.1586,20.963633". That seems undesirable to me. For one, having the coordinates themselves displayed in-line really clutters up our prose. For two, I think there should be a link to Special:Mapsources/42.1586,20.963633, ideally as an icon link as with Template:Listing and Template:Geo.

On a tangential note, we currently use two different icons for Template:Listing and Template:Geo—we should pick one and be consistent, I think. --Peter Talk 18:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The icons in listing were chosen to be simple and inconspicuous. They're small, they're monochrome. Anything elaborate or colourful would distract attention from the text as the same icons would be repeated multiple times in every city. This isn't an issue with geo as that only appears once per page. K7L (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know—I think having more colorful listings would be a plus, not a minus, but we should probably discuss that elsewhere. --Peter Talk 18:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your assumption that the template "just adds text" is erroneous; as its documentation clearly says, it emits a Geo microformat. The display of coordinates, which are useful data, rather than their obfuscation behind an icon, is deliberate. As I've already explained on my talk page, this is not an "experiment". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added a link to Special:Mapsources. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to gain consensus before removing the experimental tag. That's policy, and removing it is very poor form. I don't think the coordinates should be included in-line, and it's incumbent on you to convince the broader community otherwise, per Consensus. --Peter Talk 19:59, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In some cases, the co-ordinates are the only unique identifier for a location... for instance, if it's in the middle of parkland and therefore does not have a civic street address. K7L (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, sure, that's the reason for including geocoordinates, but not for spelling them out mid-paragraph. We don't spell them out at the top of the article, or in listings, so it would seem obvious to me that general prose is the last place we would put them. --Peter Talk 21:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What is obvious to you isn't supported by fact. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't included any coordinates inline that weren't already included incline. Your link to "Defiance of policy" is helpful though; and I invite you to read it, A policy which describes a functional template as an "experiment" is both offensive and stupid. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your assumption that the template emits the text "Geographical coordinates" is also false. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Wikivoyage is not a battleground." The basic rule governing our site is Consensus. It is incumbent upon anyone who wants to make a change to have the assent of the other people working here. That means persuasion is necessary. Simply asserting that you're right, I'm wrong and dumb, now @#$% off is not a good method for persuasion. --Peter Talk 00:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not "simply asserting" that I'm right and you're wrong; the evidence is available for all to see. You're making things up. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there must be some misunderstanding - the "experimental" tag simply means that there isn't yet agreement to start using the template in articles. In this case, it isn't clear that we would want to display geographical coordinates in article text, hence the tag remains.  With respect to the actual argument, having read through the above discussion I'm still not clear on when we would want to use this (why would we want to display inline geographical coordinates?) and thus would agree that, for now, the experimental tag should stay.  Also, as to the point that "Your assumption that the template emits the text 'Geographical coordinates' is also false", if I look at Prevalla I see "Geographical coordinates: 42.1586,20.963633".  Using an icon that links to Special:Mapsources/42.1586,20.963633 would make more sense to me, and I think that could easily be combined with whatever microformats are being added by this template. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 01:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Use in travel topics
Something like this could be useful in travel topics which do not use listing templates for identifying location of points of interest. At present in dive site articles the geographical position of important landmarks are simply entered as text. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)