User talk:Deor/Archive12

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Deor. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thank you for fixing the coords. I couldn't figure out what I had done wrong. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. For future reference, what you did was take coordinates in decimal degrees (39.459045° N, 77.741745° W) and express them as if they were coordinates in degrees, minutes, and seconds. A minute is a sixtieth of a degree, and a second is a sixtieth of a minute; so 39.45 (39 and 45⁄100) degrees is not equivalent to 39°45' (39 and 45⁄60 degrees). Your coordinates, {{Coord|39|45|90.45|N|77|74|17.45|W|...}}, were, therefore, not only incorrect but contained impossible values for seconds of latitude (90.45) and minutes of longitude (74), which produced the error message (and added the article to a maintenance category, where I found it), since, as in "o'clock" figures, neither minutes nor seconds can have values equal to or greater than 60. You could have used the decimal degrees directly in the {{Coord}} template ({{Coord|39.459045|-77.741745|...}}), adding a "format=dms" parameter to the template if you wanted them to display in degrees, minutes, and seconds, or you could have entered the correct degress-minutes-seconds values (as I did), and all would have been well. This is a mistake that a lot of people make, so there's no need to feel upset about it. Deor (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, again for the assist. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Deor - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

re

I notice you Reverted my Bold edit, without leaving any kind of Discussion on the talk page. I guess I must have missed it (can you tell me where?), or I looked too soon and you're still writing it? :-)

I'll look again in half an hour to an hour or so I guess. If there's still nothing there, I'll assume you agree that the talk page discussion in place is convincing, and I'll help you by reverting back at that time.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Kim, quit edit warring all over the place. The discussion was occurring on the talk page, there's nothing that requires Deor to take part. Ryan Vesey 18:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I'm applying WP:BRD, which is explicitly not edit warring. I agree I'm applying policies/guidelines/essays with great assertiveness, but that's because I'm here to get work done and solve problems. As far as that goes, deal with it. On the other hand, I do try to be as friendly, polite and even-handed as possible about it, of course. If you think I can do better, do so inform me! :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems that there is a "concensus" to mislead the readership. Not much that one person can do about that. Perhaps when reverting good-faith "bold" edits that go against a previously established consensus you would consider making specific reference to that consensus? Instead of saying "I don't think this is necessary, and it's certainly awkward". An explanation that makes reference to one indivdual's view and a piece of entirely subjective opinion on wording. (Wording that in my subjective opinion will mislead readers.) Japanscot (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Saying that Lewis was born in Belfast, Ireland, is no different from saying that someone was born in Edinburgh, Scotland, or in Cardiff, Wales, or in Birmingham, England. Ireland (as a whole) was a constituent country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at the time, just as England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are today. "Ireland" is used in that sense in the article, not as the geographical name of an island. Deor (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It is different, the generally accepted meaning of the word "Ireland" has changed since the time of CS Lewis's birth. No-one would interpret the unexplained word "Ireland" as part of a no-longer existing country unless they were already familiar with the history, and were paying attention to the year when Lewis was born

Your suggestion that the word "Ireland" is used to mean part of the previously existing "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" is refuted in the CS Lewis article itself. The word "Ireland" links to an article whose first sentence reads:

"This article is about the island"

The form you prefer chooses "elegance" over being informative.

If you revert a Bold edit in future for reasons of contradicting pre-existing consensus please see WP OAS On revert and make reference to the pre-existing concensus in the first instance.

Japanscot (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for clearly explaining what a Teahouse guest needed to do to fix her username. You gave a really useful, detailed, clear answer. Cheers!

	Great Answer Badge
	Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that you were (are) active on the article and Talk Page for Dante's Divine Comedy. Are you familiar with the poem? May I ask you a question about it? Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the edits to the courtly love page were for an assignment from my honors seminar at the University of Kansas. I'm not sure if my professor has an account, but if he does I don't know what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkurtz204 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Thank you for supplying the county codes for a large amount of articles i have created, and shortening down my over specific co-ordinates. Where do you get the county codes from? Gavbadger (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm working on a project concerning Wikipedia and the advent of digital history. Long as the viability of the use of Wikipedia in academia been debated. I'm curious, as you're a top contributor to "Medieval Literature" what your thoughts are concerning the contributions of lay people verses academics. Do wars develop between the two communities over who's right, or do you find that the edits by the common person to be significant value for the most part? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eirwen29 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no way of knowing what editors are or are not employed in academia, so I can't really answer your question. The editing I've seen from self-identified academics has ranged from very useful contributions to inappropriate promotion of their own work and theories. Moreover, I don't really understand how the alternatives you present in your final sentence are antithetical: "Wars" can (and do) develop on Wikipedia about almost anything, but I can't offhand recall any where editors have been divided primarily along academic/nonacademic lines; and edits by "the common person" of course constitute the vast majority of edits to Wikipedia, and some, at least, of them must have "significant value" if one assumes that Wikipedia itself has any value. Since ideally everything in Wikipedia is derived from published sources, the value of information here ultimately depends on the reliability and proper use of those sources, not on the supposed qualifications of individual editors. Deor (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Deor, I can assure you that the research and facts found in my link are true and verifiable. It appears that the people that edit Wikipedia are not interested in any information that does not meet the accepted model of academia. Too sad! I have restored the link in hopes that this research will reach the pubic that is looking for answers. However, if you choose to delete it again, I will not re-post. If that happens, I will simply have to accept the fact that the editors of Wikipedia have no interest in seeking answers outside the programming that has been given to us in our public schools. Case in point: The American Indians did not get to the Americas by way of the “land-bridge” across the Bering Strait. They do not share DNA with the Asians (e.g. no face hair). They got to the Americas by boat. The Polynesians managed to find and inhabit every last scrap of land, every tiny island in the vast Pacific Ocean (1/3 of Earth’s surface area), but modern academia would like us to believe that they somehow missed two giant continents. Modern academia is wrong with so many of their conclusions. Wikipedia is an instrument for allowing the information age to over-come the false conclusions of so-called experts and give us a better understanding of our world. It should always be based in verifiable facts without being constrained by accepted “theories” and single-minded conclusions that limit how the information is used or understood. Our collective knowledge (scientific and religious) has gotten to a point where we have a great deal more to work with today than we had 50 years ago. The same can be said for the preceding 50 years, and so on. In the information age of today we have so much data it is impossible for one person to process it all. In fact, most of us are so busy just dealing with life that few of us have taken the time to put these questions (and the mainstream answers) to the test by really examining them. Most of us accept the answers that the academic world is offering because we don’t have the time or knowledge to tackle the questions ourselves. We trust the so-called “people-in-the-know”, the professionals, the professors, and the scholars. We take it for granted that they must know what they are talking about. After all, they are the experts. Our society has become so specialized that not one of us knows the whole of human knowledge. So few of our scholars and professors have acquired for themselves, through experience, experimentation and observation, the knowledge they profess to know. And why should they? The people that came before them figured it out. The problem is, the things our forerunners figured out still have a lot of questions left to answer. Theories are being taught as fact, even though they are still theories. Concepts and ideas are being repeated by academia like parrots reciting words they have heard a hundred times. They too take for granted that what they learned is correct. After all, they paid good money for their educations. This is not to say that all scholars, professionals, and professors are just repeating what they were taught. There is an exception to every rule and our society has “Newtons” and “Einsteins” working at the forefront of our scientific knowledge. These individuals think outside “the box” on a daily basis trying to figure out what our forerunners did not. However, if their basic precepts are wrong, then they will not make much progress because they will have the tendency to make their findings fit into the accepted model. Consider this…each generation thinks that their level of understand is the height of knowledge and their model of the universe is right. People thought the world was flat and earth was at the center of the universe. We laugh at this now, but they believed this with all their strength. In the 1950s science thought that the moons of Jupiter were cold icy worlds with no activity and little differences between them. They thought this based on the single idea that deep space was far too cold for anything else. We know now that this is false but our belief in our current understanding is no different. With each new discovery we make corrections and then say to ourselves, “Now that we have corrected that error, all of our knowledge is once again correct.” But is it? We might think that we have it right and we can boast of our technology, but we need to admit that not all of our “knowledge” is correct. Just one hundred and fifty years ago our ancestors thought that steam and steel was the height of technology. Before that, they thought that wooden ships with sails were the ultimate power on the oceans. When Newton wanted to resolve a problem or answer a question, he would retreat into solitude and work on the problem with careful study. He was very careful to make sure that he did not assume anything. He was only interested in things that he could confirm and he did not fill in the gaps with things that ‘sounded’ or ‘felt’ right. When he presented his findings to his contemporaries they usually laughed and/or argued with him while citing the accepted model of the day. Very smart men, well versed in their field of study, tried to protect their view of the world from Newton’s observations. This is human nature and nothing about this characteristic of man has changed to this day. If one wants to see the truth of things more clearly, one must be willing to release the accepted model in favor of new ideas. That is not to say that everything we know is wrong, but rather that we must be willing to see things in a new light if we are to advance our knowledge. Try this little experiment: Watch a documentary from at least fifty years ago and pick out the “facts” that are wrong. Then, watch a documentary from today and try to figure out which “facts” (usually assumptions) will be considered wrong fifty years from now.

Shainathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shainathan (talk • contribs) 16:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

In this edit and similar, your edit summary was "chg unrecognized ISO code". In what sense is XK unrecognised, and by whom? AIUI, XK is the temporary but valid code for Kosovo; at least that's what we say at Republic of Kosovo and ISO 3166-2:XK#XK. Using the code for the Republic of Serbia may be viewed as politically PoV. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

See my post at Talk:Forests of Kosovo. XK is unrecognized by the International Organization for Standardization itself. Deor (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kosovo#ISO code. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I know you are being helpful... but i have just created the article, and lost 20 minutes of work on it. All in good time. Amandajm (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You might try using Template:In use to obviate such problems. Deor (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I have done that. Sorry to sound so cross and nasty! Amandajm (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your edits, but the revised co-ords still seem to be wrong on the Bing Map. The site appears to be in a wood, which is incorrect. The actual site is clearly seen on the photo slightly down and to the right of the marker as you look at the pic. Not being an expert on these things, I don't know how to change it, but trust you can get the reference shown in the correct place? With regards and thanks, David J Johnson (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The Ordnance Survey map shows the remains as being in that patch of woodland, and the first sentence of the article says that the remains are "in woods north of Great Kimble". I'm not clearly seeing any remains in the aerial view, and I don't know of anything more reliable than OS maps for UK locations; but if you have a source or a better map, I'd be happy to revise the coordinates yet again. Deor (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for the reply. The remains of the motte and bailey are actually on the spur of the hill shown on the aerial pic and also in the pic shown on the article page. If you look carefully you will see the faint outline of the earthworks. The article description needs changing which I intend to do. The correct description should be "on the spur of the hill, before the woods north of..." etc. As far as I can remember (my maps are in the loft!) the large scale OS map shows this spur to be the castle, as does the caption to the pic currently in the article. With best regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that, in addition to the OS map, the map on the English Heritage page for the site (first reference in the article) seems to belie your contention and support the location indicated by the current coordinates. Deor (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, although there are earthworks on the spur of the hill. Perhaps we should leave thing as they are. Thank you for all your help. Regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Deor; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I see you have been an active editor at Divine Comedy. Would you take a look at Template:Divine Comedy navbox?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm probably not the best person to ask about this, as I heartily dislike many navboxes, especially ones as enormous and scattershot (no Beatrice Portinari?) as this one. Usually, it seems to me, categorization and wikilinks in articles' text obviate the need for such monstrosities. Deor (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Please, help me to create the article - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Russian Atlantology --217.19.208.100 (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't read Russian, so I am not qualified to assess the reliability or appositeness of most of your references. I also have doubts about the academic reputability of the whole topic, as well as your ability to communicate clearly in English. Is there an article dealing with this topic on the Russian Wikipedia? If not, you might be well advised to first try creating an article there. If the topic is a significant one, someone better qualified than I will surely be impelled to translate it here. Deor (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the academic reputation of the whole topic of atlantology is a terrible. Sorry, your variants are impossible, particularly to publish such an science article about atlantology in Russia (and in Russian) is a difficult. It was possible in 1986-1988 (time of Перестройка). Kondratov's books (Popular science trilogy) may be translated with Google Translate from Russian to English. That is the main source with a high scientific reputation. --217.19.208.100 (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is ready - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Russian Atlantology. I need a help of editor, who has ability to write clearly in English. See - http://fritzmorgen.livejournal.com/559616.html On this site are irrefutable evidences: 'The Russian Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. This is the opposition anti-presidential project'. I do not participate in it. It is a shame to contact with these individuals. This is my opinion. I am compelled to write at the English Wikipedia for this reason. --217.19.208.100 (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

At the first step I created it Russian topic at http://cyclowiki.orghttps://wikious.com/en/%D0%90%D1%82%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B2_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8 - 5 minutes ago. --217.19.208.100 (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think I am qualified to help you with this. I suggest that you ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia, where you are likely to find editors who are fluent in both Russian and English and therefore better equipped to assist you with your article. Deor (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid there to meet paid by western intelligence agencies opposition trolls, beat the entire Russian Internet offensive and expressions like "Holy shit Ruska." Many of them hate the Russian, betraying his former country and nation. I am afraid also they create that political cloaca-improper conduct in the spirit of Russian Wikipedia. For this reason, I writing to You, because trust for You. --217.19.208.100 (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Im sorry; as I said, I don't think I can be of much help. You might try asking at the Teahouse (just click the "Ask a question" button and explain what kind of assistance you need). The editors who watch that page are usually eager to help people having trouble with writing new articles. Deor (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Deor,

Thank you for your recent contributions to the Daehyun Elementary School, and Nam District, Ulsan articles. I didn't realize that the dim paramater in the coordinate template was redundant if the type was specified. I enjoy learning new things from other users since I'm relatively new at all of this. I have one question for you, how was it that you were able to find the mistakes I had made on these two pages? Does using redundant paramaters place the articles into a category or something? Just curious how you found those two so fast.

Thanks in advance!

Rystheguy (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't the "dim" parameter that led me to the articles; it was the region code. This should consist of capital letters, and the use of "kr" rather than "KR" was picked up by this coordinate-checking tool on the Toolserver, which listed the articles under "Malformed region code". Deor (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ched has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Congrats on catching the obscure movie quote. from the movie Beverly Hills Cop. Sorry I didn't notice that sooner. — Ched :  ?  22:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks, but I'm not hungry now! I'll save it for later. Deor (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the coordinates for the sculpture which you correctly pointed out was incorrect.

I must disagree with you about the permanence of the sculpture - many of the sculptures in the National Gallery Sculpture garden have been there for decades and this sculpture is solidly concreted in and attached to to its plinth. This is not a temporary sculpture garden or a temporary exhibition. These are prominent works added to the national collection for display. The category requirements state not to include coordinates for "Works of art (other than permanent statues or murals)". But this is a permanent statue.

dnw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's fine with me. I couldn't pinpoint exactly where in the sculpture garden the thing is, and it seemed better to remove the incorrect coordinates than to leave them in the article. Deor (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with Our Lady of Perpetual Help-- especially appreciate the new map! Sueswim03 (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. Deor (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Deor -- would you be interested in taking part in an interview about the use of geocoordinates in Wikipedia for the Wikipedia Signpost? The interview page is at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Interviews4. We've only had two participants so far: it would be great to have a third. -- The Anome (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Good day! I was curious if you're aware that by editing the coordinates for these places, they no longer match those that appear on the Quebec toponymie website. Wouldn't that then be considered an invalid link? Also, are all populated places in Quebec considered as city regions for the purpose of identifying them in Geohack (hamlets, for example)? Thanks! Gordalmighty (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that the the Commission de toponymie Québec site is using a different reference system than the WGS84 system we use, but for some reason their coordinates seem to be a bit off in a number of cases; I checked both the Google "satellite" view and the topographical maps at this site before tweaking the coordinates. With regard to the type field in {{coord}}, "city" is the type used for "cities, towns, villages, hamlets, suburbs, subdivisions, neighborhoods, and other human settlements (including unincorporated and/or abandoned ones)"; "hamlet" is not a valid type (the valid ones are listed here), and using it causes an article to be listed under "Invalid type" by this coordinate-checking tool—which is why I was drawn to those Quebec articles in the first place. If I've made any errors, feel free to correct them or bring them to my attention. Deor (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• First off, thanks for the quick reply! I've taken note of the website link you provided and am presently looking it over. I will agree that I was a bit perturbed to see that the Dundee pushpin map appeared to be located almost in upper New York State! If we tweak others, should we consider changing the coordinates link? Wasn't completely clear on the city issue, so that's good now. Thanks! Gordalmighty (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Sidenote: Found this site: http://www.gps-coordinates.net/. The website you referred to above uses coordinates from Quebec toponymie anyways. Opinion? Gordalmighty (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure where the discrepancies come from. As you can see by looking at the "Datum" entry here, the Canadian sites seem to be using the NAD83 reference system for their coordinates rather than the WGS84 that we and Google Maps and most of the other online mapping services use. I'm not entirely sure how much difference that makes, but if you paste the coordinates for Pointe-Leblanc on that page into Google Maps, you get a point a little way into the St. Lawrence River. It probably doesn't matter much in the great scheme of things, and the difference may be only a matter of tens or hundreds of meters, but it looks a bit sloppy to me if someone clicks on the coordinates of a small village (say) in a WP article and is led to a map that places the coordinates in a cornfield a little outside the village rather than in the village center. What I usually do is try to find the place in question—in relation to roads, landmarks, etc.—on some authoritative map (like a USGS topographic map or a map at the Natural Resources Canada site or an online Ordnance Survey map for Great Britain) and then use the GeoLocator tool to determine the coordinates that correspond to that location. It's rather persnickety, but I think many WP editors are so.

P.S.: The gps-coordinates.net site you linked to seems to determine the coordinates for a place by the location of the label for the place on Google Maps, so its coordinates don't exactly match the Québec toponymie ones, either. Deor (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

We did not come to much of a decision at Talk:Dante_Alighieri#Template:Divine_Comedy_navbox. There is a broader discussion on the matter at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates. I particularly like the argument presented there by Sadads (talk · contribs). Could you state your opinion there to help achieve broader consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the coordinates for Pedvale Open Air Museum. I hate doing those. I will be there in June, and next year for the conference. I need an article to refer people to the site. pustelnik (talk)

You're quite welcome. Deor (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your great work setting the coords for all those Vienna U-Bahn articles. It's appreciated. Azylber (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. User:The Anomebot2 did its monthly run of adding {{coord missing}} tags, and I've just been going through the bot's contributions and picking off some of the easy ones. Deor (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by showing a location in context on a map rather than zooming in as close as possible?

Shashenka (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, consider a random school article: Broken Bow High School (Broken Bow, Nebraska). The "type:edu" parameter in the {{coord}} template sets a scale of 1:10000 (equivalent to "scale:10000" or "dim:1000"). If a reader clicks on the coordinates in the article and then goes to the Google satellite view, he or she sees a map that shows the location of the school fairly well in relation to the surrounding streets and other features in the town. If, on the other hand, one adds "dim:200" to the {{coord}} template, the coordinate display 41°24′28″N 99°38′19″W / 41.40778°N 99.63861°W / 41.40778; -99.63861 takes the reader to a view that shows a nice image of the top of the school but doesn't give much of a sense of where, exactly, the school is located. It's not a big deal, but there's no particular reason to override the scale set by the "type:edu" parameter in such cases. Deor (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this better than what i did before? https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Poughkeepsie_High_School Shashenka (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, except that you don't really need to give the coordinates to six decimal places (which is equivalent to about 3 inches of precision; see WP:GEO#Precision guidelines)—41.6949, -73.9137 would do quite nicely. Deor (talk)

Two things is this better now? https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Lindenhurst_Senior_High_School Secondly how big of a problem was it that i added to much precision? Shashenka (talk)

The Lindenhurst coordinates look fine. Overprecision isn't too big a problem, really; a lot of people are overprecise with coordinates. If you want to read the Wikipedia guidelines on the matter, they're at WP:GEO#Precision guidelines. Deor (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not the best on coordinates regards Mztourist (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, You reverted in Crookston, Minnesota. You can't find 2012 Estimate. Here click 2012 estimate --Rossdegenstein (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm not sure why the ref in the article was taking me to the wrong page at first. The population figures in the infobox, however, should not contain commas (the commas are added in the visible article, though), and you forgot to update the accessdate in the infobox ref for the 2012 estimate. Deor (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all your contributions to the geocoding of articles! The Anome (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks (although you already gave me one of these a couple of years ago). Deor (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, you deserve another one. -- The Anome (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

for adding coords to Pyhäjoki (river). Now I know how to do it if I do a river article! I hope you don't mind that I flipped them and moved one in closer. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about flipping the coordinates for the source and the mouth. I was trying to watch a film on TV and edit Wikipedia at the same time—always a bad idea. Deor (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Since you have over 100 edits at Arthur Conan Doyle and Robert Louis Stevenson, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)