Misplaced Pages

talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Floydian (talk | contribs) at 19:26, 1 September 2011 (→Continuation of discussion: take it as it is, or move on and leave us alone). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:26, 1 September 2011 by Floydian (talk | contribs) (→Continuation of discussion: take it as it is, or move on and leave us alone)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Road junction lists page.
Shortcuts
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 15 days 


Roads intersected

This edit changed the "Roads intersected" header in {{jcttop}} to "Destinations", citing this page. I guess this is fine for states that list control cities for at-grade intersections, but what about the ones that don't (which outnumber the ones that do by a significant margin)? Having "Destinations" as a header for a column that contains only shields and route designations seems wrong. – TMF 19:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In the event of a junction list, I think that "Roads intersected" is more appropriate. Dough4872 02:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Reverted. – TMF 03:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Should European Junction lists be separate articles?

I beleive that there is a good case that European junction lists shoudl be separate articles in their own right and that they should not be translated into other languages, but rather there should be cross-language links. Thus, the English language article on the Italian A1 would have a link to the junction list in the Italian language WIkipedia.

I propose this only in respect of European junction lists. What do people think? If there is a genreal consensus in favour, I will see what other language Misplaced Pages editors think of the idea. Martinvl (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose—Bad move, in my opinion. I don't speak Italian, so any notes in a junction list hosted only on the Italian Misplaced Pages just became inaccessible to me. Additionally, the article here would be missing information, and thus wouldn't be considered "comprehensive" in coverage. I'm going to post over at WT:WikiProject Highways/Europe since that is the new European Task Force for the global Highways project. Imzadi 1979 → 17:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Fails being comprehensive, seems like just another attempt to avoid RJL entirely. Also, at least on the English Misplaced Pages, articles that are just exit lists have been subject to deletion. --Rschen7754 19:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    IIRC, the last attempt failed, miserably. Jeni 23:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Imz and Rschen --Admrboltz (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose since non-English language RJLs might be inaccessible due to language barriers, and cross-language links would introduce a great variety of style, detail level, accuracy etc. It would be better to translate and reformat the RJLs.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Dashes and or emphasis in RJL

RE:

Denelson83 (talk · contribs) added a dashed box around Truck Scale in the RJL for Highway 15 because thats how the sign appears. I couldn't find anything in the MOS either in RJL or formatting, but I do not believe emphasis like this is necessary. We are not a travel guide, or a truckers guide. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Remove the dashes. Our job is not to replicate the signs' appearance, it is to replicate the necessary content. In this case, the content is that there's a scale there. It doesn't matter how that word is stylized on the sign. Imzadi 1979 → 03:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a case of Bold, revert, discuss. I already undid the addition, and brought it here for discussion since this is a potential MOS issue. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The other issue is that not all browsers may be able to display that stylization, and there's no explanation in the article for the stylization, making it useless to anyone that's not a Canadian or not a trucker. (Assuming non-trucker Canadians know what it means.) Imzadi 1979 → 04:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC: restructuring of the Manual of Style

Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:

Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?

It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica 00:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sub-section on coordinate templates

I'm against the additions to this guideline for the following reason: Having that section in there makes it seem like RJL endorses including coordinates for every single junction in the table. The guideline does not, for very good reasons. --Rschen7754 03:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I recently added a sub-section, "Coordinates ", which said;

If including geographical coordinates, use {{Coord}} for each set; and one instance of {{GeoGroupTemplate}} per page.

This has been removed, supposedly because there is "no consensus". This is patently absured. {{Coord}} is the standard template for coordinates on Misplaced Pages; with well over half a million instances. The above wording says nothing about whether or not coordinates should be added to articles, just how to implement them if they are used. We even have an example of such usage in this section of the MoS; all my wordings does is tell people which templates to use to achieve this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Linear says it best:

There are a number of ways in which coordinates relating to linear features can be added to Misplaced Pages. As yet, there is no single method which has achieved consensus.

So, until there is consensus at WP:COORD, it has specifically not been included here. –Fredddie™ 18:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I have added a hatnote on the M5 example pointing editors to WP:COORD for more information. –Fredddie™ 18:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
That's insufficiently prominent, I've removed it until discussion is resolved here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, which is why I suggestd no single method (of those discussed or similar); however, they all involve the use of {{Coord}}. that is consensus at WP:COORD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
But, we don't want coordinates in junction lists. --Rschen7754 23:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a full family of templates that can be used to generate RJLs for the US and Canada: {{jcttop}} for the top of the table, {{jctint}}, {{jctco}}, {{jctbridge}} for the body of the table and either {{jctbtm}} or {{legendRJL}} for the bottom. The guideline text only strong suggests ("should") using coding for the header row that complies with MOS:ACCESS in the template or table coding. The section on the table footers states that there are two templates that exist to generate the standardized table footers, but assuming that someone hand-coded that row of the table, it would comply with the guideline. In short, there has never been a requirement to use templates, and it would be somewhat controversial to do so, even if there are numerous benefits.
As for coordinates, there is no consensus to even include them, there is no consensus here to exclude them. The issue should be left unaddressed by this guideline at this time. (WP:USRD's informal consensus has been to remove coordinates from project articles outside of tagging single landmarks or roadways that are so short that one terminus is basically visible from the other. In other words, the largest single highway project doesn't want them, but we don't care if other countries use them.) Imzadi 1979 → 01:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The change I made left the issue of whether to include coordinates unaddressed; it merely said how to include them if they are included. Furthermore projects don't OWN articles and can't make policy on such issues, either way. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Here's an analogy for how we roads editors see it.

At the top of a skyscraper, a seasoned skydiver (that's you, Andy) has posted instructions for how free fall without a parachute and not die (stuff about coordinates). The instructions are spot-on correct and nobody questions the skydiver's credibility. The building supervisor (that's us roads editors) sees the instructions and takes them down because they read like it's OK to jump off the building. Then super puts up his own sign saying not to jump off the building because you may die (hatnote on M5 example). The skydiver objects because his instructions were correct, but the super counters by saying he doesn't want anyone jumping off the building (this discussion).

I admit this is a bit of a stretch, but I hope you got a chuckle out of it. My point with the analogy was to demonstrate that both sides are arguing two different points. –Fredddie™ 11:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Jumping off skyscrapers may be prohibited; adding coordinates to articles about roads is not, so your analogy doesn't help us. BTW, I'm a "roads editor", too; but in any case, members of a single project, or other group, have no special privileges. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Who is this "we", Rschen7754? You don't speak for me; and you shouldn't attempt to enforce your PoV by restricting other editors' access to information on how to do something you DON'T LIKE Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy, take a big step back a moment. We have two issues at work here. The first is the traditional rejection of geotags on road articles. Unless there are new site-wide concepts in tagging linear features, consider that issue closed. It's not "optional"; the involved WikiProjects have rejected adding the tags, and their members remove them on sight at the moment. That could change in the future, of course.

The second issue is that MOS:RJL has been officially neutral on template usage. There is a whole set of templates ({{jct}}, {{jctint}}, etc) that can be used in the creation of a road junction list. The only ones mentioned are the two that generate the required footer rows that contain the color key and unit conversions. If an editor hand-coded a template footer that complied, we wouldn't use MOS:RJL to tell that editor to use the template.

Your addition made this guideline, which is officially neutral on the geotagging issue, address the issue. There is no consensus on tagging linear features yet, so it's premature for a section of the Manual of Style to address the idea at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 13:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have traditionally opposed adding co-ordinates to the junctions table, as when they were first being added to European road articles, the additions looked hideous. The co-ordinates took up the bulk of the table, and were often marked up with colors. This effect made the articles look more like they belonged on a roadgeek fan site and less on an encyclopedia. I think the strong reaction from the US editors comes from that, combined with the fact that many transcontinental highways in the US have significantly more junctions than the average European highway, meaning the junctions list takes up a significant portion of the article even without additional markup. (see U.S. Route 101 in California, Interstate 10 in Texas, Interstate 5 in California, U.S. Route 89 in Utah to name a few) However, if I understand what Andy is proposing, it is to LIMIT the use of co-ordinates on articles that use them in the least visual impacting method currently available. I'm not opposed to that. I agree this could open a can of worms by implicitly endorsing coordinates. However, this method isn't that bad, even on most US highway articles it would fit in the notes column without becoming too much of a visual distraction. I have concerns, but I don't see the need to be absolutist in screaming no. Dave (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Could the template being used to list coordinates as footnotes below the table be modified to have the list of coordinates be collapsible? If this was a collapsed list I would be OK with endorsing this method of geotagging. However, on the above mentioned examples, even as footnotes, the coordinates would bloat the table.Dave (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no "traditional rejection of geotags on road articles"; and so I won't be considering any issue closed. As explained above, "the involved WikiProjects" (whatever they are) have no ownership, so cannot decide policy as you suggest; which would indeed be contrary to this guideline. The addition is not premature, as also explained above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Andy: of the nearly 14,000 US highway articles, less than 1% of them have coordinates. Of the 220 for Michigan, I can name only two that use {{coord}}: M-107 (Michigan highway) and M-108 (Michigan highway). The former has a tag for the location of Lake of the Clouds and the latter is so short that while it was in existence, you could see one terminus from the other. Outside of the UK, so I'd say that there has been a rejection of including coordinates tags in highway articles. In fact, like many of the others who have commented here, I do summarily remove them from articles on my watchlist when added. So, none of us WP:OWN the articles, but consensus has been upheld so far. Highway articles in general have not been tagged.
Dave: Andy's proposal had nothing to do with limiting tagging. It would only have prescribe what template to use to tag an article. In fact, {{coord}} displays a full set of coordinates linked in full blue text somewhere in the article, which is the very problem many of us have with the concept of geotagging the articles. Unlike the hidden metadata added to biographies using {{Persondata}}, adding the coordinates into the articles is very visible to the reader. The UKRD method of footnoting them below the table only shifts the clutter out of the table into a list that increases the length of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 18:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Cluttering up the article with colorful distractions is my concern as well. I did propose that the coordinates be placed in a separate table that is collapsible, expanding on the footnote templates that Andy is pushing above. Do you think that would resolve the clutter issue? or would that remain? Dave (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The issue with WP:BEANS still remains. If we have a section for coordinates, people will begin to insist on them being there in every highway article. And, that is just not feasible for most of the US articles, if not worldwide. --Rschen7754 18:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
When I was adding Driver location signs distances to British motorway articles, I also rationalised the way in which coordinates were handled - the article M6 motorway probably has the most coordinates of any British RJL. BTW, the UK has its own format for handling junction lists. Martinvl (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
What is the criteria for the features worthy of listed coordinates? I did look at the M6 motorway article, and the criteria seems arbitrary. I'm really torn by this, as there are times I wish US road articles did have some co-ordinates on some features. However, I can easily see how this can get out of hand in a major way. Dave (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
We don't have a formal criteria, in practice however it appears to be a junction (or bridge) that is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant its own article in Misplaced Pages.Martinvl (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't exactly inspire confidence of a manageable system. There are times I would like to see co-ordinates on road articles. I don't think we are at a point where we can include guidelines in our style guide of how to list co-ordinates, unless we also have guidelines for what features should and should not have co-ordinates. Dave (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, very arbitrary and very inconsistent. There are service areas that have articles, but aren't coordinate tagged in the M6 junction list. There are many other errors in that table that hardly make it a model for a best practice. Imzadi 1979 → 03:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreeing with Dave. Stating how to format coordinates for entries in the junction list, but not having any guidelines on how those coordinates are selected creates a lot more ambiguity than is needed. Without such things spelled out, articles will lead to inconsistencies on application and use, which is what I think many want to avoid. This MOS page went through some contentious revision not too long ago, in an attempt to eliminate inconsistencies and formatting issues and close loopholes and ambiguities in this guideline that had led to out-of-hand junction lists on some articles. The proposed language about coordinate formatting opens things up to problems that editors were trying to eliminate. In addition, I didn't see any discussion on this page that the proposed way of formatting coordinates had achieved any consensus. I'm not completely opposed to coordinates (as an optional feature), but there's gotta be some discussion on how that would be implemented in a clean and standardized way before I'd be willing to endorse it on this page. -- LJ ↗ 09:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
"I didn't see any discussion on this page that..." - then you need to re-read my initial, and other, posts in this section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Andy, your initial post in this section states that {{coord}} and {{GeoGroupTemplate}} are the standard way of providing coordinates on Misplaced Pages, and I don't think anybody is denying that. Here's the problem: How are the coordinates placed in an article or junction list? Your wording does not provide those specifics. Where has the issue of how to display coordinates in tables and lists in junction tables been discussed? It certainly doesn't appear to be anywhere on this talk page. The proposed wording cites use of GeoGroupTemplate, yet the example on this page (plus a sampling of articles: M5 motorway, M6 motorway, M6 Toll, M62 motorway) don't use that template. Many editors question the usefulness of adding coordinates to junction lists at all--leaving the usefulness issue aside (which is a whole other ball of wax), this does nothing to quell concerns others have about coordinate implementation. The overall point is that you added this sentence to this MOS page with no discussion whatsoever. That is the main problem I see. What you added doesn't provide the right amount of specific detail. This MOS page underwent significant revision to implement specifics in formatting and remove ambiguities through careful wording. And that process was undertaken through a significant amount of lengthy discussion/debate to make sure everyone concerned was on board. -- LJ ↗ 11:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The pages you mention use {{kml}}; which redirects to {{GeoGroupTemplate}}. The issue of where to place coordinates, if they are given is addressed by the inclusion of the M5 example as part of this guideline. If, as you contend, what I added "doesn't provide the right amount of specific detail", then the remedy is to provide the right amount of specific detail, not remove what I added. Please point to the requirement to discuss edits before making them; and, as that is "the main problem see", please also note that a discussion is now taking place. Please can you tell me where the wording currently imposed on the M5 section went through "a significant amount of lengthy discussion/debate to make sure everyone concerned was on board"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, the MOS is supposed to set the design standard used on articles across Misplaced Pages. Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't presume to add something to the MOS that would affect numerous articles/editors without bringing it up first on an appropriate talk page... But there is discussion now, so lets move forward then. -- LJ ↗ 10:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
From the top of the page: "Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus." It is quite clear that your edits to RJL do not reflect consensus. That's why we discuss before making such a controversial change like that. Moreover, you reverted quite a few times after people reverted your change on grounds of "no consensus". That was even worse than your first addition. --Rschen7754 23:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Please retract that lie. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
it tells a story - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 11:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for providing evidence to back me up; which tells the story that the accusation is a lie. I'm waiting for Rschen7754 to retract it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I refuse to retract that statement until you show where there was explicit consensus for you to add the section that you did to the Manual of Style. It is clear that consensus is against your additions to this page. In order to add *anything* to *any content or behavioral guideline anywhere on Misplaced Pages* that might be controversial you need to start a discussion. --Rschen7754 00:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that two separate issues are being mixed up:
Firstly - are coordinates permitted on RJL's? In the UK, the answer appears to be "yes" - the coords in question have been there for several years and possibly predate the RJL MOS guidelines.
Secondly - if "yes", then what are the criteria for including them? In the UK, the criteria appears to be editor consensus.
Martinvl (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a third question: "If coordinates are included, then how should that be done?". That is the only question which the disputed text addresses. Nobody has suggested any different answer to that question, so including that text should not be problematic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have to retract a bit. I, personally, am not opposed to adding coordinates along roads at all. I do think the junction list is the best place to insert coordinates; however, I don't want to see it done half-assed or done arbitrarily. I want there to be a community-approved guideline on how to add coordinates to roads and then apply it across the wiki. Since we don't have that just yet, I don't want to see it in this part of the MoS.

I don't see this discussion as being fruitful in the end, so I'm willing to start fresh and try to work on something that we can all agree on. –Fredddie™ 22:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  • comment Just my opinion and motive, but when I find a single coordinate assigned to a road and showing at the top right of the article, I remove it. Coordinates are for a point. Roads are not points. No point on a road can be objectively determined to be the most important. Because of the nature of roads and the fact that they are a network, and not a simple tree of linear features (like a watershed is), a point in the middle does not accurately reflect the nature of the road. I am opposed to any use of the coord template on road articles. I'd be happy to work out a solution that could work with our exit lists, similar to what I have set up on Ontario Highway 77. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 23:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
    • But there you have every junction having a coordinate, and that just doesn't work for a lot of US roads. --Rschen7754 02:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
      • The problem now is that Andy has TfD-ed {{shc}} which Floydian used to tag the junctions using a template that suppressed the display of the coordinates, which was the closest thing we'd get to a compromise to the visual clutter issues. The problem with {{coord}} is that it displays the coordinates to the reader, which adds an additional blue link in a table that's already full of blue links already. Even if the coordinates weren't linked, you'd get the visual clutter of additional text that is of marginal value to the end reader. The UK solution is to footnote the coordinates, but that increases the length of the section, which is already long enough on many articles as is. Floydian's method is by far the best so far, but if if the template is deleted, I'll have to go back to endorsing no tagging over any other scheme. Imzadi 1979 → 17:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Indeed. This was just a quick setup of a bare bones framework to get the minimum functionality. I didn't bother with metadata, and all that other stuff beyond just making it work. Highway 77 is rather short, so its not a hassle to tag every junction. The beaurocratic side of things, in figuring out how to implement it in various situations, would require a bunch of separate discussion to arrive at a happy compromise. Of course, all this assumes we don't go back to step one. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 23:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to support the concept of coordinates, but unfortunately, we have too many editors in the US who would abuse the system just like they abuse a lot of our other systems. Any implementation needs to be manageable. --Rschen7754 03:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

When to have Coordinates

Many editors, myself included, have said that if we are discussing the formatting of coordinates we also need to discuss when coordinates should and should not be used. So let's have the discussion. Below is a bulleted list of possible features with my comments, please feel free to add or comment differently.

Cases

Discussion

  • This list is not definitve but is indicative of what can be identified with coordinates; in all cases the addition of coordinates is subject to consensus. Martinvl (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add anything I might have missed. Dave (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I found a common theme in my responses. –Fredddie™ 22:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
What you missed is the notification of this poll to other interested projects; or better as a centralised discussion. The poll is also orthogonal to the section under which you have nested it, which is not about whether to include coordinates, but how to present them if they are included. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see it as a poll at all. Right now, this feels like a brainstorming session that goes on before a proposal is written, commented on, and put up for a vote. –Fredddie™ 23:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to have a list or table of features of a road, why would you elect not to provide coords for any feature sufficiently notable to be in the list? By all means discuss what features are sufficiently notable to be in such a list, but are you really suggesting that having listed them, you would wish to ensure that a user cannot use a link to find the said feature on a map? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Too much clutter. Poor signal-noise ratio. --Rschen7754 23:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
That's somewhere between very weak and completely feeble. In a table, if you are to have any coords, then you have a column that can store coords for each row. In a list, you can achieve much the same by user of a regular pattern of information. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Have you considered contributing to the discussion rather than insisting on having it "your" way? And to be clear, we are not adding in coordinates for every single junction on Interstate 5 in California. --Rschen7754 00:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
1. In so far as I have to date merely asked questions as to why you are considering not doing something, I think that a) I have entered the discussion and b) and I have not by any stretch of the imagination specified "my" way. I find your tone offensive and your logic crepuscular. 2. I note that in the same post, you say "And to be clear, we are not adding in coordinates for every single junction" as if you are some sort of god king tyrant. Again, offensive and, given the first part of your post, deeply deeply stupid. Yours is no way to make progress on wikipedia. I think it behooves you to take some time out to consider your position. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no need to include the longitude and latitude along with a link to display a coord in various map services. The link does just fine, using a non-invasive and space conserving globe as the link. Nobody cares about the numbers because they aren't going to use their technical gps for highway navigation, but please feel free to tell me that everyone does in fact care about the numbers because I'm sure the geotagging project has an agenda that it will slam against other wikiprojects whether they like it or not. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 10:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
" Nobody cares"? When you surveyed everyone who's ever used or might use Misplaced Pages, you forgot to ask me. Or perhaps what you meant to write was "I don't care". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry we forgot to deliver a personal message. Where was my notice when the community at large "decided" that coords with latitude and longitude should be used as opposed to a simple link to page that not only displays the latitude and longitude at the top, but then provides access to a plethora of map services that then visually show you the location and its surroundings (as opposed to a GPS, which at best will display the non-satellite layer of Google maps). It's clutter. It's pretty clear from the several discussions ongoing right now that it is more than I who finds them useless in this situation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 11:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
{{centralised discussion}}; but then I have never claimed that "everyone" wants that; merely that there is consensus, in the Misplaced Pages sense. BTW, WP:DONTLIKE applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Floydian, comments such as "I'm sure the geotagging project has an agenda that it will slam against other wikiprojects whether they like it or not" is neither accurate nor helpful, and I'd remind you to assume good faith. FWIW, in tables of road attributes - and unlike my esteemed colleague Mr. Mabbett - I would be happy with your suggestion of the use of the globe sans numerical coordinates, ideally based on a modified {{coord}}. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It's merely an opinion. Obviously the agenda of the geotagging project is geotagging every article that can be (but I stand to be corrected here). I'd assume that's the primary focus of that wikiproject at this point in time. As for slamming; yes, it has been a very aggressive campaign by the members of said project to institute the process the way they have planned out. When a group complains that it is being forced upon them without compromise (ie removing the bulky text that needn't be there), the rhetoric is that "there is consensus by default" and "Well you just don't like it". Ya, I don't like it. It's ugly, its cluttering, its redundant, it's pointless. This is a valid rationale, and not simply a statement of "I don't like it" (which unfortunately outnumber the ILIKEIT's). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 14:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
For what its worth I also think having Geocoorcinates on major features are fine and these days many, many people care. How do I know this? Because they have GPS's in their cars, they have GPS on their phones and they frequently Geotag their pictures when they take them and upload them to thinkgs like Facebook, Flickr and others. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be using these things. I should also mention that when it comes to projects with their own agenda who tend to strong arm other projects into submission or to enforce their agenda US Roads is right at the top of the list in the eyes of a lot of editors. --Kumioko (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

Add something akin to this:

Geotagging of features in the junction list (i.e. junctions, bridges, etc.) is out of scope of this Manual of Style entry at this time. The decision on whether to use and how to place geotags should be determined by the consensus of involved editors. Where used, geotags shall comply with WP:COORD.

This would essentially kick the can on which features should be geotagged down to the individual country WikiProjects (so if UK wants geotags in their RJLs they can have them and make their own guideline on where to put them, whereas if the US doesn't want them they don't have to have them). Meanwhile it would also include Andy's desired pointer to WP:COORD and ensure that any use of geotags complies with that style guideline. Thoughts? —Scott5114↗ 00:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose—I have some comments to make, and a proposed solution if {{shc}} is deleted, or if its basic functionality isn't added to {{coord}}. Until that TfD closes though, I won't be proposing the solution because my preferred method is based on that template. Sooner or later though, if the roads editors (in other words those that actively write, edit and research highway articles as their main editing activity) don't come up with a set of guidelines on how to format these, some other solution could be imposed. Imzadi 1979 → 01:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
This sounds interesting. I've gotta run, but more later. --Rschen7754 03:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The current wording of this makes me a bit uneasy. If it was limited to something explicitly mentioning the UK, it would be more of something I could live with. As far as coord versus shc... Coord does reflect the current consensus. My personal preference is using shc. I see Scott's solution as more of a stopgap measure for now - I would anticipate needing to go back and change this when we decide what to do with coordinates in highways. --Rschen7754 03:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, the idea would be that RJL remain coord-agnostic as long as coords follow the standard coord guidelines when used. Instead each project could decide how to—and whether—to implement them and document that decision as one of their project-specific standards (so for USRD, it would be added to WP:USRD/STDS, or even individual state standards pages if USRD wished to punt it to the states). This allows individual countries to use coords as they see fit and avoids the trap of specifying one monolithic standard that we have to quibble about the details on because of different circumstances and densities of features. So if UK wants to tag every junction, let 'em, if USRD doesn't want anything tagged, that's cool, if France wants to tag some things and not others, whatever. As long as everything is done consistently within one set of articles I don't really see why we can't cater to local conditions.—Scott5114↗ 04:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a huge fan of the local solution here because a) we could theoretically wind up with a lot of different tagging guidelines, and b) this seems to be more of a partisan debate than a regional debate here, as Martinvl and Floydian seem to be roughly on the same page with the US editors. --Rschen7754 04:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Here's the basic issue, at some point if roads articles are going to have coordinate tagging added, the best place for these linear features to hold such information is in the one part of the article that treats the subject as a purely linear feature. MOS:RJL already deals with how to format wikilinks (specifying abbreviations like I-59 and A1 over Interstate 59 and A1 road) and how to use highway marker icon graphics in relation to highway names. Specifying how and where to locate coordinate data is analogous to those other specifications, and this is the proper place to deal with that. Dave's list of potential tagging locations and the discussions around them (excluding Mitchazenia's insistence against any coordinates tagging) already shows that the basic agreement is that the following should have geotags:
  1. The termini except for very short roadways
  2. The junctions that are important enough to be listed in the infobox
  3. Significant features already in the table that are notable enough to warrant separate articles or inclusion in the table
  4. Other cases that address the specific needs of a specific article per consensus on that specific article
As Rschen said, there isn't a regional schism over these points. The question will be at the end of the day: "what is the best method to accommodate the addition of these tags that addresses the clutter issues at play yet still provides the requisite functionality to interested readers?" Andy's original addition only specific two templates, but not where and how to use them, and without those two questions answered, his addition created more problems than solutions. Imzadi 1979 → 21:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about anybody else (besides Mitchazenia), but I fully agree with this, the where question of implementing coordinates. Now we need to figure out the how. –Fredddie™ 22:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

For how, may I suggest that you look at the M5 example on the project page and work from there. I agree that the selection of coordinates on that page is a little random, but I think the format is worthy of consideration. Martinvl (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely one of the options on the table. --Rschen7754 06:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Okay, we've spent enough time discussing and we've had some inactivity, so let's start proposing something. Here is a proposed addition to WP:RJL:

==Coordinates==

The following locations on a road should be tagged in the junction list:

  1. The termini except for very short roadways. If the road is very short, use the midpoint instead.
    1. In the event of a loop road or other circular road with no terminii, use the zero milepost/kilometrepost /marker instead.
  2. The junctions that are important enough to be listed in the infobox (no more than 10 at most)
  3. Significant features already in the table that are notable enough to warrant separate articles or inclusion in the table
  4. Other cases that address the specific needs of a specific article per consensus on that specific article

Note that not every junction needs to be tagged; furthermore, not every junction should be tagged if there are more than 10 junctions. specific attention should be given to the number of tags needed to represent the route without providing too much visual clutter, both in the article and in the resulting coordinate map. Under no circumstances should every junction be tagged if this results in more than 20-25 coordinates, or lower depending on the length of the route.

===Implementation===

The details of this are still being discussed; for now, using {{shc}} or a functional equivalent that hides the coordinates, or using {{coord}} in a footnote is preferred.

Note that won't actually go in the guideline

As a sidenote, in regards to phasing this in, this would likely be an A-class requirement to begin with; obviously, coordinates are not part of the GA criteria, and there's too many B-class articles to tag them all in one fell swoop.

This isn't a "straw poll" per se, but please be clear as to if you support or not and why so we can get things moving. --Rschen7754 02:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

SupportSounds good to me. Once we determine if {{shc}} or its functionality will survive TfD, we can hammer out the exact method to tag. Imzadi 1979 → 02:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Amending my previous comment since I misread the exact text, but I too agree that the "no more than 10 at most" is too limiting. We should start with the 5–10 listed in the infobox as the starting point. If a road has 11 junctions (in addition to the termini) spaced out apart, there's no reason to leave one out for the sake of complying with an arbitrary limit. The most major junctions listed in the infobox (and many countries list in excess of 10) should be the basis to start weeding through the numbers. Imzadi 1979 → 18:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I've made some edits; do they address your concerns? --Rschen7754 03:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Based on the usage of open-source, linear data from OpenStreetMap, I no longer support the addition of discrete data points for linear features. Please see #Better solution below. Imzadi 1979 → 02:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Support. --Rschen7754 02:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Support. I supported above, and I still do. –Fredddie™ 03:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I no longer support adding any coordinates and now only support adding data from OpenStreetMap –Fredddie™ 01:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, maybe the text should read "The following locations on a road may be tagged in the junction list:" (emphasis mine). I still support the principles at hand. –Fredddie™ 03:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Why do you say so? If we need wiggle room, MOS is a guideline, not policy. --Rschen7754 03:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Support - Provided that in respect of UK roads the format in use is continued. However I agree with Freddie that the word "may" be used rather than the word "should", especially as many UK motorway articles list more than 10 other roads in their infobox.. Martinvl (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Since the UK uses coords in footnotes, I believe that the "implementation" section already covers that. As for the number, I agree that the 5–10 number should be a starting point, but I disagree that every junction on every article needs to be tagged. The intent is to provide a framework and a guideline that reflects that a properly tagged table need not have coordinates for every listed feature to be considered "done". In fact, my Plan B implementation solution is a modified version of the UK's method: it puts the list of coordinates, and the one template that isn't consistently used in the UK in a collapsed line of the mandatory footer that is supposed to appear at the bottom of the table. (Note, the UK and the US have both been slow to implement that footer, but it's still required by the MOS, in part, to comply with MOS:COLOR and MOS:CONVERSIONS.) Imzadi 1979 → 18:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I was under the impression that the 5-10 junctions in the infobox was a worldwide thing; I guess it's not. Could you provide an example so I can see what you mean? (One thing I do know is that in Germany for example, all the junctions are listed in the infobox because they were imported from an older infobox; we don't want to tag every single junction in the infobox there). --Rschen7754 03:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Support the general principles presented, with possibility to touch up or further clarify the language wording later. -- LJ ↗ 09:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Follow-up comment: Perhaps an explanatory sentence regarding the nature/purpose of coordinates as it relates to highway junction lists is appropriate. Then a statement such as "If coordinates are added to a junction list, the following entries should be geotagged." In my opinion, we should not 'compel' editors to add coordinates, but if they want to add them then it should be done so according to a standard policy. -- LJ ↗ 09:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Until we are clear on what the implementation will be, I think it unwise to set rules for how many things will be tagged. I can conceive of concerns about the length of a list of footnotes, if footnotes are employed to display coordinate links or information. No such length concern arises if a {{coord}} or {{shc}} type coordinate is used within a table of junctions. If {{coord}} or {{shc}} are used within the table it makes no sense to prohibit adding coords to junctions that are not in the infobox, or to other features; rather, the MoS might confine itself to determining a) what features should appear in the junction list and b) the method of geo-coording them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but as consensus above shows, the vast majority of editors do not support tagging every single junction if there's a lot of them. I would ask that you consider what is likely to be passed (this proposal) rather than what you want and won't be passed (all junctions being tagged). I mean, I'm sure that you would prefer this proposal over no tagging at all, right? It's making a compromise. --Rschen7754 03:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
What an extraordinarily arrogant post: agree with us or the kitten gets it. I live in hope that you'll one day recognise that views that do not accord with yours may still be legitimate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not a threat. I'm simply stating what I honestly believe will happen, in hopes that we can come to an agreement that would result in a positive outcome for both parties. I have worked with some of these editors for years (most since 2008) and I know where they stand on issues like this one.
And a kind request, would you please tone down the rhetoric. Instead of helping us resolve the dispute, you're just making it worse. --Rschen7754 23:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Nice try, but there is no "consensus above" - and this discussion cannot form one, without wider involvement. I'm with Tagishsimon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
What other form of discussion would you suggest, then? This is the proper way to propose changes to the MOS, see . Or, do you have an alternate proposal, if you believe that there is consensus to tag every single road junction? --Rschen7754 23:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Support with severe reservations as I don't feel the proposal is ready for prime time. Here are my two-cents worth:
  • Point 1: If coords are included at all, then the termini are a no-brainer. However, the current proposal doesn't address how to handle fully closed Interstate loops or other urban beltways that have no terminus.
  • Point 2: Unless the proposal is modified to include coords in only the infobox and not RJL's, then the coords shouldn't be limited to 10. Ideally, all two-digit Interstate and non-bannered U.S. Route intersections would be geolocated on national routes in USRD. Primary state routes would only provide coords for other state route and national routes. Only secondary state routes would provide coords for other secondary routes.
  • Point 3: Any significant feature along the route notable enough to have its own article presumably should have coords on its own article that don't require repetition on USRD.
  • Point 4: I don't expect to see editors wasting much time discussing consensus of specific needs regarding coords on specific articles.
The bottom line is that I really expect to see coords added only to A and GA articles in USRD in the short term and maybe new article by experienced, thoughtful editors knowledgeable about how to obtain geolocation info in the first place. The truth is that the project is better served by its own emphasis on stub elimination and even adding mileposts to RJLs lacking them, which are legion, before coords becomes a priority. Even when there is an overall normative way of dealing with coords for linear features and a truly accepted policy regarding coords on USRD, the overwhelming majority of articles will still lack them for years to come. Fortguy (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • In regards to point #1, that is true. Infobox road uses the zero milepost to deal with that situation - would that work here?
  • National route articles... such as U.S. Route 50? For them, maybe, but for routes like California State Route 99 that would be an absolute nightmare.
  • I agree fully on #3, but apparently other people didn't.
  • Yeah, I agree that coordinates aren't a priority - they should be among the "finishing touches" of an A-class or a FA. We technically can't require coordinates at the GA class anyway because coordinates are not part of the GA criteria. --Rschen7754 05:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Fortguy, keep in mind that this is a MOS proposal affecting all highway projects and articles, not just US roads and the USRD project. With that said...
  • Re #1, there shouldn't be any problem using the 0 milepost/kilometer post/exit for the "terminus". If an official zero point cannot be found on a belt loop, the termini clause shouldn't be required.
  • Re #2, removing the "No more than 10" clause but keeping the emphasis on including the most major of intersecting routes.
  • Re #3, I can go either way on this. I don't see tagging significant features as a big problem, and that will allow the feature to show up with other geotagged locations when using the "map of all coordinates" feature (if that is to be implemented as part of this).
  • Re #4, There may not be much discussion, but I do think this is an important point to leave in should it become necessary down the road.
-- LJ ↗ 09:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Went ahead and added it. --Rschen7754 23:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Your point 3 is a false assertion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Why do you say so? --Rschen7754 00:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I have a feeling this will need clarification as time goes on, but is at least a start. Despite the grumblings of a few above, this is a perpetual proposal that has been debated for years in a number of forums. It's about time we tried something to move the debate forward. Dave (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't see why we need coordinates on highway articles at all. I think they look tacky and add a lot of clutter to articles. In addition, it is subjective to pick out which points along the route get coordinates as people will constantly revert each other as to which coordinates should be included. In the past, USRD used to have a major cities list and this was removed for the same reason as there was too much subjectivity to what cities were included. I think that MOSRJL should be amended to ban coordinates from road articles. Dough4872 01:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Like I've said above, this isn't my first choice option. However, I'd rather have no coordinates at all rather than tagging every single road junction, so this would be my second choice option. --Rschen7754 04:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
      • If we have to have a way for coordinates to be presented in road articles, I would prefer the option of using footnotes in the junction list and I would prefer for it to be optional and not a requirement for every road article. However, I prefer the option of no coordinates over having them in any form period. Dough4872 18:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the line:
"Under no circumstances should every junction be tagged if this results in more than 20-25 coordinates, or lower depending on the length of the route."
is removed. I personally prefer to tag every entry on the table if {{shc}} is kept or merged, and I see no problem with doing that. If one author only adds the major junctions and then another comes along and tags the rest, it is only an improvement. I cannot support any proposal which serves to limit this. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 04:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Scenarios like this are why we want to keep this out of the United States. I'm not dismissing this suggestion entirely, but I don't want to have problems in the United States either. I have an idea for a solution in mind, but I'd like to toss it around in some informal channels before posting it here. --Rschen7754 06:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of a hard numerical limit myself. Unfortunately, our experience with the "major intersections" in the infobox has shown that some kind of limit has to be set. In the case of the infobox, we've got people listing a junction with an unsigned 2 lane highway in Mypodunktown, NJ as a major junction. Undoubtedly the same will happen here. To be honest, that's my biggest concern about opening this can of worms, is the exit list being flooded with the coordinates of trivial locaitons. Dave (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Dave and Floydian: we're moving the numerical limit down to the WP:USRD/STDS level. --Rschen7754 23:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
How on earth can you change the proposal after all of the "votes" above? You have changed the very thing that people were either supporting or opposing. What validity do their expressions of support or opposition now have, given that the thing they were supporting or opposing has been changed. This makes no sense.
Further, you're now arbitrarily fractionalising the policy such that one bit sits here, another there, another somewhere else. You say here "we're moving the numerical limit down to the WP:USRD/STDS level" ... the proposed policy says no such thing. With much regret, I must say I find that not a good faith move but rather Machiavellian.
Again, sorry, but this whole thing stinks of WP:OWN. One way or another, you'll get the result you want. Get challenged on limits here: move limits somewhere else so that this policy gets through. Get challenged there: move the policy to the page, and so on. It's just not right. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Knowing the editors on this page, I'm sure they'll notice the changes (I actually talked to Imzadi1979 about the changes). And moving the limit to the WP:USRD/STDS moves it to a nationwide level, meaning that it no longer affects countries outside of the U.S. Please WP:AGF and either offer constructive feedback, or take your pooh-poohing of a genuine attempt to achieve consensus somewhere else. P.S. Floydian is a Canadian editor. --Rschen7754 23:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
"Knowing the editors on this page" - You appear, once again, to be under the misapprehension that this is a page, or a matter, for a subset of Misplaced Pages editors. It is not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It's a page on the internet, and the signatures are the editors. Therefore the signatures represent the editors on this page. Stop playing with semantics, stop insinuating drama, and start working towards a compromise, because you can't always get what you want. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 01:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
What I want is to be able to add encyclopaedic information to an encyclopedia without someone telling me IDONTLIKEIT. The current proposal arbitrarily limits the number of coords that can be placed on a table. Even though it purports to be a style discussion, it is in fact solely concerned with limiting content. It ducks entirely the implementation issue - and I suggest that without agreeing the implementation we cannot sensibly discuss limits. It's allegedly predicated on a fear of "clutter", but mandates the creation of typographically illiterate gap-toothed tables in which some entries have coordinates and some do not. It's being run as a cabal by a couple of ringleaders who - see above- have decried any constructive suggestion made that falls outside their preferred approach. There's not very much to like here. The constructive suggestion is to treat this as a matter of style and not of content; to agree how coordinates will be placed in the tables, and not to arbitrarily limit their number. The constructive approach is to produce mock-ups so that we can evaluate the (for me, baseless) fear of clutter. As you probably know, I've done this on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates‎, only to be met with the most bizarre response (that small coordinates are 'cheating', that tables _must_ use a bloated, inappropriate, and in the context of this venture, a completely suboptimal style, because a style that actually works would mean that we could have coords without limit, and that is not the aim of this proposal. I've been dismissed as an outsider, FFS. Exactly how much of this is one supposed to take before deciding that the process is deliberately corrupt? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have one observation to make. Several editors who actively edit articles on highways and roads don't like various concepts related to geotagging highway and road articles. When we express our opinions, we're told that it is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT situation. At the same time, some editors pushing for geotagging highway and road articles disagree with us and don't like our position, yet they have not recognized that theirs is also a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position as well. Please, folks, simmer down and let's come to some kind of resolution here. Imzadi 1979 → 23:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Here's the difference. The argument for providing coordinates for every junction in a table include:
  • Location is objectively a primary attribute of a junction (along with things like number, mileage, which roads intersect, etc, that are already in the tables). It is encyclopedic information. We should make arrangements by which we can collect, store and disseminate such information.
  • Geo-tags enable users to verify the information in the table by linking them to a map against which they can check.
  • Geo-tags enable users to visit maps to see the junction. This is useful. Providing information on a junction and denying users an easy means of seeing that location on a map deliberately degrades the service we are capable of offering.
Against that, the only two arguments I've seen against geo-tags are:
  • IDONTLIKEIT, and
  • Clutter. And on that there are several counterarguments:
  • one person's "clutter" is another persons incredibly useful information and/or functionality (i.e. the dissemination of primary attribute, provision of link to the map)
  • "Clutter" is a subjective view, one shared mainly (in my analysis of the above comments) by people who have decided that they don't like geo-coordinates.
  • "Clutter" - to the extent it exists - can be overcome by better table design
I cannot see any way on God's earth that the two arguments can be thought equal. One is progressive, positive, utilitarian, and furthers our mission. The other is regressive, negative, parochial, selfish and does not further our mission.
We are more than capable of adding a single additional column to a table to store useful information. Arguments that this is not possible are absolute bunk. We can point to any number of places this has been done, successfully, on wikipedia.
Frankly, so far as tables are concerned, the only discussion I think worth having is whether we display the coordinates as numerals per {{coord}} or use an icon per {{shc}}.
--Tagishsimon (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
If the junctions are tagged with a template that only takes up a small amount of space, you are correct. Every junction can be tagged and the additional space/clutter can be managed. If I understand the intent behind the shc template, it is to do exactly that. However, I could not, in good faith, endorse a proposal where every junction is tagged using a template that displayed full coordinates. I'm waiting to see how Imzadi's proposal to use OpenStreetMap pans out. If the OSM proposal is deemed not to be acceptable, I think I could support your idea providing a template such as shc is used. The nice part about letting the OSM project take care of this is that is a dedicated resource for these things. On OSM, every culvert and bolt on a milepost sign can be geotagged, if one so desires, while avoiding the "clutter" for those that view it as such. Dave (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
But it requires hours of work that very few people would benefit from. That's a serious problem. WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. --Rschen7754 17:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, my concerns are the opposite, that as soon as we say, "OK roads articles can be geo-tagged" we'll have an army of people flooding the exit lists with coordinates. Much the same as we have everybody insisting the junction with their driveway is a major junction now. Maybe that's the silver lining, maybe these obsessive editors will have something more constructive to do with the time by geotagging =- ) Dave (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
As with everything else on Misplaced Pages, it requires nothing at all; it's optional for editors to add data to Misplaced Pages; those who feel it worthwhile will do so. Arguments about workload thus have no merit. Those, such as you who fail to see the value, are entitled to abstain. And the coordinates of noteworthy features are not indiscriminate information. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
So we (the roads editors) are supposed to shut up and take it while a couple of editors who have no interest in editing roads shove coordinates done their way and their way only down our collective throats? –Fredddie™ 01:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm Rschen7754 and I endorse Fredddie's comment above. --Rschen7754 02:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll point out once again that "the roads editors" are not a homogeneous group and that you have no remit to speak for them all. Furthermore if editors have an interest in adding coordinates to articles about roads then by definition they have an interest in editing articles about roads. your reference to "a couple of editors" is unsubstantiated scaremongering. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

New proposal

As the proposal above is increasingly becoming derailed as past comments are stricken and new votes made, it is clear that a compromise is not going to be reached at this moment. I suggest that we vote to end this now as "no consensus to use Coordinates: Missing latitude
Invalid arguments have been passed to the {{#coordinates:}} function", pending the outcome of the {{shc}} deletion discussion. Consider this a challenge to the geotagging team: Come up with some method of utilizing the directions feature available on many map providers to provide a single tag highlighting an entire route. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 01:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Many articles currently provide precisely that mapping functionality through {{Google maps}} or {{Bing maps}} accessed through a citation in the lengths_ref parameter of {{Jcttop}}. Fortguy (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, but it would be a big step if geohack could figure out how to use that information on the other map services. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 20:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlike {{Google maps}} or {{Bing maps}}, {{Coord}} allows the user to select a mapping service of their preference. Also, I note that {{Jcttop}} claims to be "WP:RJL-compliant". In which case, how does one add a column for coordinates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
There has been no consensus to add a coordinates column to RJL, ergo it is compliant. Please note that the only experiments that have added coordinate data to junction lists have used other methods that don't require a specific column added to the table. Imzadi 1979 → 22:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no consensus that a coordinates column may not be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (road junction lists)#Standard columns does not contain a coordinates column. There has been no consensus on including a coordinates column into that list. Imzadi 1979 → 22:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Nonetheless, there are tables in articles about roads, with coordinates columns; since WP:RJL does not prohibit them, they are compliant with it. Nor are they "experiments". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, no, they are not compliant. "Coordinates" is not a valid column in MOS:RJL, or it would be included. Any article that has included a non-standard column, as an experiment, is not compliant with the style guideline as written. Even the lone example on the page that has coordinate data does not use a separate column. The only column set up that isn't explicitly defined in terms of nomenclature is the section on "geographic columns", which will vary based on the nation, state, province, etc where the roadway is situated. Some US articles have up to three such columns (state, county, location) while most have two (county, location). In some US subdivisions, "parish", "borough" or "municipality" are used in place of "county", and if a roadway only passes through one county (or equivalent), the column is dropped. Otherwise, the columns are standardized. Imzadi 1979 → 23:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The applicable section in WP:RJL is titled "Standard columns" and opens "Generally, the following columns should appear from left to right in the following order". Clearly, it is not an exhaustive list and a coordinates column or indeed any other deemed appropriate, is not contrary to it. The examples are illustrative, not prohibitive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, why isn't coord capable of showing linear data on a variety of map services, as it does single points now? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 22:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
It is - with {{KML}}, and one instance of the former per significant point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The points aren't connected, they're still just individual dots on a map, not a line. I believe that's the point Floydian was trying to make. Imzadi 1979 → 22:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Then he was tilting at windmills. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what that saying means, but I'm taking it to mean "No, we can't and I'm not prepared to attempt to". KML is only good for Google Maps, no? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 00:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
If only there was an on-line encyclopedia, where you could look up idioms you don't understand, rather than leaping to foolish and erroneous conclusions. And no. Perhaps you could refrain from decrying templates and data standards, until you understand how they work? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Close this discussion as "no consensus"

Comment

Pretty obvious that there's no consensus for using coordinates on highway articles at this time. This discussion is starting to run around in circles; time that all moved on and started being productive. --Rschen7754 23:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't get to close an ongoing discussion when it's not going your way; nor with a biased summary As there's "no consensus", the status quo pertains; coordinates may be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
The status quo has been to not use coordinates at all. No additional columns for them, nothing. At best, MOS:RJL has tolerated footnote-style additions of coordinate data, but nothing else. Imzadi 1979 → 23:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll leave others to ponder your self-contrary and thus pointless comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
If you look at the section above this one, there are six signatures from users who disagree. –Fredddie™ 23:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In summary, coordinates may be used. They won't be tolerated by the above list of editors. A coordinates column is contrary to RJL. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 00:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Those editors don't have a veto; and please cite a specific part of RJL to support you assertion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Although the UK roads group is not very active, I think that all editors on this side of the pond are happy with the format used in the M5 example in WP:RJL. I would like to add a note of clarification to the M5 example - something of the form "Until a project-wide consensus can be reached on geo-coordinates, the format shown below is acceptable for UK junction lists". Martinvl (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
That's already implicit; and as I say above, there are also perfectly good articles about roads with coordinates columns in their junction tables. Until and unless wider (i.e. with a centralised discussion, outside any one project) consensus is reached, I'll be opposed to any wording (which would be a change to the status quo, not a clarification) which suggests or implies that coordinates are prohibited, on any article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Cool. Add your lone oppose to the vote above then and we'll see how this turns out. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 20:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You have failed to show how there is consensus anywhere for geotagging, rather than "a lot of articles have the tags." There is no {{guideline}} that approves of coordinates. Therefore, we don't have to tag any of our articles. --Rschen7754 20:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Your attempt to ban the use of coordinates has failed; ergo, the status quo pertains. Nobody has said that "you" have to tag any of "your" articles; indeed, I've clearly stated the opposite. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Let me be blunt: Is there any discussion of any form or any guideline of any form that mandates the use of coordinates on road articles? Where does your interpretation of the "status quo" come from? --Rschen7754 21:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Funny, because on the deletion discussion for {{shc}}, you take the opposite stance, arguing that any progressive changes must be made after consensus is seeked. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 21:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The pertinent question is "Is there any discussion of any form or any guideline of any form that prohibits the use of coordinates on road articles?". I'm sure you already know the answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Better option

Geographic data related to Paul B. Henry Freeway at OpenStreetMap While I respect the work that the people behind WP:WikiProject Geographical coordinates have put into geotagging articles about single fixed locations, for a linear object, discrete points don't make as much sense. The folks behind WP:WikiProject OpenStreetMap and OpenStreetMap have a better option: {{Osmrelation}}. By looking up the relation number for M-6 (Michigan highway) on OSM, I was able to add {{Osmrelation|271833|Paul B. Henry Freeway}} to the external links section of the article, which produced the box at the right. That linked "relation" has linear data available for the full length of that 18-mile (29 km) highway here in Michigan. Since this possibility exists, I won't support the addition of coordinate data using {{coord}} to roadway articles unless the highway is so short (under 1 mile, 1.6 km) that the midpoint scenario discussed above makes sense. Imzadi 1979 → 02:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you find the number? --Rschen7754 04:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
What Rschen said. I'm willing to listen to anything that would render moot both geotagging and the WP:IDONTLIKETHATYOUDONTLIKEITTHEREFOREIWIN attitude some editors above have. –Fredddie™ 04:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm definitely interested. I'd like to do some research before I can commit to supporting, but this looks promising. --Rschen7754 05:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The OSM project and link template are a fantastic resource, in their own right; but do not provide the same benefits to our users, who may wish to find a specific point on a map, or download the metadata onto their own device, as do {{Coord}} & {{KML}}. You're comparing apples to pears. You also presume that all roads in Misplaced Pages will be adequately mapped in OSM. This is not necessarily the case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Any roads that would likely have coordinates added to them would be in OSM. That's a bold statement to make, I know but - looking at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Highways/Countries, there's very few road articles in Africa and Latin America, where most of the holes in the data would be. I'd expect every notable road in the US and Canada and Western Europe to be in OSM, and that's where most of the articles are. --Rschen7754 17:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Here are the steps that I used to find the relation numbers for M-6, US 131, M-28, M-35 and Capitol Loop:
  1. Navigate to the roadway on OSM, zooming in pretty close. (it doesn't matter where along the roadway you use, I used the US 131/M-6/68th Street interchange area for both M-6 and US 131.)
  2. Click the blue plus sign icon on the right.
  3. Check the box for "Data". A pane will appear.
  4. See if the roadway desired appears. (It may appear under the local street name instead of the highway name.) If not, click "Manually select a different area " and drag a small selection box over the specific roadway.
  5. Click on the roadway once the name appears on the list.
  6. Click "Details"
  7. On the page that loads, it will pull up all of the various geographic information about that roadway segment.
  8. Look through that page to see if it gives the relation as a "Part of" or similar. That relation will have the number in parentheses after the name. If you click the lick for the relation, it will load a specific page for the relation that also contains the number. In some cases, the OSM editors have added the link to the Misplaced Pages article on that roadway to the relation's data as well.
That's now I did it. Imzadi 1979 → 20:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
(ec)I'm not making a "is this your final answer" statement. However, I like the general idea of linking to OSM instead of us trying to tackle the co-ordinates problem within the article. Any features not currently supported by OSM that are currently implemented in the Misplaced Pages templates surely will be added as both projects mature. Add that to the fact that the OSM database is opensource so surely there are toolbox servers out there to add features not directly supported by the project, just as there is with Misplaced Pages. Dave (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
If Misplaced Pages is the crowd-sourced, open-source online answer to a traditional encyclopedia, then OSM is the equivalent answer to an atlas or online mapping service. There is a wiki devoted to OSM, and there are WikiProjects on it already for various regions. The articles I OSM-tagged already had links to their enwp articles already in the relation data. Imzadi 1979 → 23:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a question but you would still need to individually tag specific points like intersections, key historical points, start and end points of the roadway, interchanges, etc right? --Kumioko (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really. If a relation isn't set up for a highway (Brockway Mountain Drive isn't set up yet, and the relation for US 41 in Michigan includes Wisconsin) then one on OSM will need to be created to join together the various segments of a single highway. That's something done in OSM itself, not Misplaced Pages, but for M-6, US 131, M-28, M-35 and the Capitol Loop, relations were already created, so I could add the template already. Imzadi 1979 → 23:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks that makes sense. Question though, isn't OSM considered a Wiki type site run by volunteers like Misplaced Pages? If so does it meet the reliable reference/external links criteria? I'm not that familiar with the site or the OSM project so forgive me if these questions seem stupid. --Kumioko (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:EL says to avoid "links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Misplaced Pages should not be linked." I've seen external links to several wikis in Misplaced Pages articles, like Memory Alpha on Star Trek-related articles. I don't think OSM links are problematic under that content guideilne, or the {{OSMrelation}} template would have been sent to TfD years ago. As for the US, OSM is based on TIGER data from the US Census Bureau. Other similar datasets from other countries are used in its creation, meaning that the core data isn't unreliable. Imzadi 1979 → 23:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

A new proposal

This endless discussion must end. This debate has spread to too many different forums, period (full stop). Both sides are not going to budge, and there won't be a compromise solution. In the end, the best answer at this time is the status quo. One side will argue that allows coordinates, and the other will argue it doesn't. My solution is that this MOS page takes no position on dealing with coordinate-tagging at all beyond what it currently says: "At the present time, there is no consensus to tag, or not to tag, any roads article with coordinates." (Bold text is a modification.) Adding additional columns not specified in the guidelines is not compliant with the guideline. Using footnotes of any kind in the table for any purpose is not forbidden or encouraged. If those footnotes contain coordinate data, references, annotations, whatever, this guideline will not take a position on it. Imzadi 1979 → 22:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the rush to end? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
We... want to work on articles. --Rschen7754 22:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Please: do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Both sides have made their positions clear, and no one has budged from those positions in days. If anything, the "roads editors" have retreated from a potential compromise. We could discuss this for two more days, or two more months, and things aren't going to change. Better to stop arguing, and move on back to other activities than waste more time and effort here. Imzadi 1979 → 22:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
No. Whilst you are blocking the inclusion of obviously encyclopedic content the discussion needs to and will continue. You are welcome to duck out of it if you feel you have better things to do. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The guideline suggests columns; it does not prohibit them Those articles which have a column for coordinates are not in breach of it. And this guideline does take a position on the use of coordinates - it allows them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
What column in the current list is for coordinate data? "Notes"? Imzadi 1979 → 22:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess until a dedicated column is provided, that'll have to do. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Your question does not follow on from my comment; I fear you have misread it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Let me be clear: As one of the editors who wrote RJL, the intent was to only have those columns. Nothing more. The wording should be changed to "Generally, only the following columns should appear from left to right in the following order:". --Rschen7754 22:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Let me be clear: As one of the editors who wrote RJL, my intent was no such thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, I don't see where you contributed to the RJL discussions (especially as the origins of this were in the WP:USRD project); can you clarify? --Rschen7754 22:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Coordinate section proposal

After another pissing contest, the section regarding coordinates was removed. If it is to be re-added, I propose it read like this.

At the present time, there is no consensus as to whether or not roads article should include coordinates; consensus should therefore be reached on highway WikiProject talk pages or other relevant nationwide talk pages.

This is most of the last version before it was removed. I think it would be wise, at this time, to not include a mention of the M5 example. –Fredddie™ 22:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Full support though "nationwide talk pages" could use some clarification so people don't think we mean Talk:United States. --Rschen7754 22:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
No. It would be better to say nothing that say this. I well know Rschen's keeness to move his prohibition of enclyclopedic information to another forum he thinks he can control better than this one. No support for this whatsoever. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you opposing because you don't like the wording or because Rschen is supporting? –Fredddie™ 22:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
This first of these. Rschen is an irrelevance. There's a lot wrong with the very few words you've typed. For instance, the discussion was about coordinates in road junction lists, no coordinates in articles - the two are distinct. Neither has there been a discussion of, and so there is no mandate for, the suggestion that cconsensus should be reached on "highway WikiProject talk pages or other relevant nationwide talk pages". --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I actually typed very little of that. It is simply the last version of the text before it was removed. I'm going to go have a drink or five to relax. I suggest everybody who reads this page do the same :D –Fredddie™ 23:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that was Rschen7754's corruption of the preceding version, which is what I quote below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I will respectfully ask that you either a) file a WP:RFC against me if you believe that this is the truth, or b) cease making these accusations unless you can back them up without singling me out. --Rschen7754 22:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Dave and Floydian: we're moving the numerical limit down to the WP:USRD/STDS level. --Rschen7754 23:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC) --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Because we only wanted it to apply to US articles. US != worldwide. --Rschen7754 23:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
All of us have an interest in all of the articles. Who is this "we" of which you speak? Your "we" does not own RJL policy, either in the US or anywhere else. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems like you have satisfied yourself that I'm misbehaving. So, I ask that rather than cluttering up the discussion here with your accusations against me, where these accusations won't do any good, that you would rather take them to a user conduct RFC. --Rschen7754 23:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm satisfied that you think you own something that you do not. I'm buggered if I'm going to stroke your ego by taking out an RFC. And I deplore the AN/I you took out on Andy. Shameful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Please make yourself familiar with WP:OWN and especially WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that WP:V is a policy, and that references to maps such as are provided by {{coord}} and {{shc}} satisfy WP:V, I guess WP:LOCALCONSENSUS represents game over for this attempt to ban coordinates. Good-oh. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I did mention the point, at the top of this section - on 8 August. ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
This would only be true if there was an established consensus to use coordinates on every article, and not just an assumed consensus due to WP:silence. Guess what? Somebody is speaking up! We (that being the collective group of editors who primarily focus their efforts on road articles, just in case this still hasn't been established), as a group, have opposed this now. Until more than two of you (I'll clarify you in one sec) can step in and push your agenda, consensus is against Pigsonthewing and Tagishsimon (that's "you"). Constantly opening new proposals won't change anything but semantics: If you add coordinates to a road article in North America, you will fight a long uphill battle. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 23:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Please make yourself familiar with WP:OWN and especially WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Please list the "policies and guidelines reflect established consensus..." on this issue. As I understand it,there is no policy or guideline to implement the inclusion of coordinates on articles. WP:V only states that information that is included in articles must be verifiable. It does not state that anything verifiable must be in an article. (That my street exists does not warrant inclusion in an article. That a specific set of geographic coordinates exists may not warrant inclusion as well.) Imzadi 1979 → 23:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
"Please list the "policies and guidelines reflect established consensus..." on this issue. As I understand it,there is no policy or guideline to implement the inclusion of coordinates on articles.": WP#RJL. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Which does not advocate the use of coordinates at all. WP:STICK. --Rschen7754 19:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Did I say that it does? That wasn't` the question. And the dead horse flogging is all yours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I am very familiar with both policies actually, especially WP:CONSENSUS, which I have studied very thoroughly to know where I stand when I make statements. I'm sorry that you feel, since this discussion is not going the way you planned and allowing you to brute force your way without any compromise whatsoever, that we are guilty of WP:OWNership. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 23:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
"you feel, since this discussion is not going the way you planned and allowing you to brute force your way without any compromise whatsoever" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, please show all of us where you have tried to compromise. I sure can't find it. –Fredddie™ 18:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternative

(ec)The above proposal is contrary to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The wording should be:

At the present time, there is no consensus as to whether or not roads article should include coordinates; consensus should therefore be reached on individual article talk pages. See the M5 example for one way to include coordinates where such consensus is reached.

with the M5 example, which is part of the MoS included. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is there's over 15,000 highway articles; do we want to have 15,000 discussions? --Rschen7754 23:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Where does anyone say that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that it will be neccessary to have 15,000 separate discussions. In most cases editors will recycle a format used elsewhere which will not provoke a separate discussion unless there are specific issues pertaining to that article (too many columns, inappropriate junctiosn beign tagged etc). For the record, I introduced the "M5 style" geotagging when tidying up some UK articles. Martinvl (talk) 06:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The alternative wording implies there was a discussion where the addition of coordinates to the M5 motorway way was held. Did such a discussion actually take place? The talk page for the M5 motorway has 1 post from 1 editor about the subject that I can see. Dave (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Given that the example is part of the MoS, it's clearly acceptable to use the style elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
…and should also refer to WP:LINEAR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't WP:LINEAR say there's no consensus on how to add coords to roads? –Fredddie™ 18:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Your point being? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
It is contradictory to say "Here's an example where consensus was reached," but then link to a page where it's clearly stated there is no consensus. WikiProjects should be giving clear directions on how to do things, not give mixed messages. –Fredddie™ 18:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Nobody said "Here's an example where consensus was reached". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I feel like I'm dealing with a dyslexic now. "See the M5 example for one way to include coordinates where such consensus is reached." That is pretty damn clear. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 19:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should clarify - in 2007 the UK roads group agreed to the addition of coordinates. In 2009 I added Driver Location Sign information and as I felt that the way in which the coordinates were presented took up too much space, I reorganised the format and posted a message here. Nobody from the UK group commented (not even User:Jeni), so the format was accepted by the UK group by default.

However the world-wide group has not given an opinion one way or the other. From the point of view of the UK users, I think that we are quite happy adding a limited number of geocoords above (or below) junction numbers as per the M5 example - if other wish to follow our example, feel free to do so - and please feel free to use the M5 example as a template - if you want to do it some other way (or not do it at all), again feel free to do so - we will watch and decide whether or not that other way has merit. My over-riding concern has been to minimise the number of columns without sacrificing information and also to keep colums showing junction numbers and distances as short as possible. Martinvl (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

So I haven't commented on this issue in several days. Since that time, I'm seeing that the debate here is getting nowhere, editors on all sides of the issue aren't really backing down or reaching compromise, and the arguments are becoming repetitive and uncivil. I would like to suggest that we completely cease and desist all conversation on the topic of adding coordinates to road junction lists for a period of at least one month. In the meantime, the guideline should be restored to how it was before Andy edited it, i.e. no mention of coordinates whatsover save for the existing M5 motorway example.

The last time this MOS page was being revised, there was a significant break before issues raised by the UK road editors were worked out. I would hope that a month's break from this discussion would generate similar results. In the interim, perhaps the interested editors can start sandboxing their ideas on implementation/display of coordinates in RJLs, so if/when this discussion resumes there are working examples to start from. I'd like to see cooler heads prevail so that consensus can be reached and everyone can get back to the main business of editing this encyclopedia. -- LJ ↗ 20:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. --Rschen7754 20:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Support  VC  20:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
This has already been tried, and failed, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits
Hmmm. Good point. I guess the better solution is to stop responding to you so that this discussion ceases. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 21:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

So you think you can stop me and spit in my eye
So you think you can love me and leave me to die
Oh, baby, can't do this to me baby,
Just gotta get out, Just gotta get right outta here
Nothing really matters, Anyone can see
Nothing really matters to me...

— Queen, Bohemian Rhapsody
--Rschen7754 03:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, a month only lasts 3 days...ugh... -- LJ ↗ 18:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion

Copied from Freddie's talk page, where he started to censor comments Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Fredddie has volunteered his talk page as a place to discuss things in the interim, since the DRN has closed. I've copied the last few things said there over here. --Rschen7754 07:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Because you've totally misrepresented our position. We, the roads editors, are not anti-coordinate. So why would I make arguments against coordinate tagging when I don't even hold that position? I, in fact, added coordinate tags to the article for my former high school. But, if done improperly, poor coordinate tagging is worse than no coordinate tagging. We would like to tag the articles, but we want to do it in an orderly way. Can we both agree on the following? It's not much, but it's a start.
  1. In some form, we want coordinates on road articles.
  2. Improper coordinate tagging is worse than no coordinate tagging at all.
  3. We need to be pretty darn careful on what gets tagged on a road article; we don't just want to tag random points on the road.
  4. Selecting what points get tagged on a road article may involve compromise; we can't just put coordinates every 500 feet. --Rschen7754 01:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I apologise. It is easy to misread your position as being anti-geo-coordinates, not least from statements such as "5. The US Roads project does not want them; "decided at WT:USRD back in 2008"'. I'm unsure what you mean when you talk of "Improper coordinate tagging". No-one has suggested that we should have coordinates every 500 feet, that I know of. The suggestion that has been made is that each road junction listed in the table of road junctions should have a coordinate. The basis of that suggestion is that these are to points of interest in a road junction list. I think you know that that is the nub of the argument, but if not, I would ask you to proceed on the basis of that understanding. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
For example, look at Oklahoma State Highway 74. Tagging the midpoint would be a very bad idea here, because the road exists in two pieces. Also, look at California State Route 99. It would probably take several hours just to tag every single junction in this article, and for what benefit? Very few people will want to save the coordinates for the intersection of SR 99 and Laval Road - does anyone even exit there!? (Sometimes in rural areas, the DOT is required to put a junction at a certain location to provide residents access - that doesn't mean that the location is notable). A better option would be only doing 10-15 coordinates, tagging the most major junctions (and the most likely to be searched for) and the viewer can still get a somewhat accurate representation of the road. Basically, it's marginal cost and marginal benefit from economics. Will a first coordinate tag be worth the time it takes to find the coordinate on a map and insert it into the article? Yes. How about the second? Yes.... How about the 16th? Probably not, so we shouldn't add a 16th tag.
One more example - Interstate 10 in California. Does it make any sense to tag every one of the first 8 junctions since they are so close together, when they all can be viewed quite reasonably on the same map? --Rschen7754 01:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
"8 junctions… so close together": All the more reason to geocode them, then; that way, our readers can zoom into a map, with the KML overlaid, and see which is which. In attempting to determine "the most likely to be searched for", you're ascribing your own views or needs to others; you - nor I or anyone else - can't know what they will want. And if a junction isn't notable, why is it in the article in the first place? If someone wants to spend "several hours just to tag every single junction in article", we shouldn't stop them; Misplaced Pages does not have deadlines. Besides, they may have the data to hand, from a reliable source. That said, it's good that you now seem to appreciate the benefits of coordinate templates, and I look forward to working towards a solution which is acceptable to all concerned. Perhaps this discussion should now go back to WP:RJL? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa. Please slow down. We're giving an inch and you're taking a mile. Any solution mandating or even allowing every single junction to be tagged on a long route is not going to get anywhere. It's been stated already; if you refuse to accept past consensus discussions, look at the present - there will be strong opposition. And yes, I am speaking for all the roads editors - I am one myself, and I've sat in #wikipedia-en-roads for years - I'd venture to say that you get to know someone's Misplaced Pages views decently well if you talk to them on IRC for a few years. If you insist on tagging or allowing the tagging of every road junction, then we might as well shut this discussion down. It's on a user talk page for a reason.
But virtually everyone's on board with tagging the 10-15 most important junctions / landmarks on a route. It would be a shame to not go through with it just because 1-2 editors effectively state "I want to tag every single junction and I will settle for nothing less, opposition be darned." Can you swallow your pride and agree to compromise here so we can get a solution that furthers the encyclopedia, rather than furthers Pigsonthewing? --Rschen7754 13:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I know for Interstate 10 in Texas, the number of instances of {{Jct}} in the junction list alone went over Mediawiki's template counter and the last 20-or-so instances were broken, that is, they didn't produce the route marker graphic. So that page, unless there is a non-template way to add coordinates, is going to be really hard to tag. –Fredddie™ 14:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Adding one, or three, sets of coordinates would be really hard how, exactly? besides, we don't make decisions on how to write the majority of articles based on a few extreme examples, which can be dealt with if and hen they arise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm saying if you add coordinates for every junction on I-10, it will break the page. Pure and simple. I also removed your name calling and the flat-out lies. You don't seem to be reading what Rschen is typing. –Fredddie™ 15:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I've read and responded to what Rschen7754 has written; feel free to demonstrate where you think, I've "flat out lied" or called anyone names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not taking anything; nobody's calling for mandating the use of coordinates, and their use is already allowed, as has been pointed out to you many times recently, and denial of which (including your claims of local project consensus), you have been unable to substantiate. Once again you quote hyperbolic proposals which I'm willing to bet you can't substantiate. The stauts quo is the compromise you claim to want. Your ad hominem attack is once again beneath you as an admin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I have highlighted in red the lie and the name calling in blue. I didn't see this until now, otherwise I would have replied on my talk page. –Fredddie™ 21:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, highlighting is by me, Fredddie.
"I'm not taking anything; nobody's calling for mandating the use of coordinates, and their use is already allowed, as has been pointed out to you many times recently, and denial of which (including your claims of local project consensus), you have been unable to substantiate. Once again you quote hyperbolic proposals which I'm willing to bet you can't substantiate. The stauts quo is the compromise you claim to want. Your ad hominem attack is once again beneath you as an admin."
— User:Pigsonthewing 10:35, August 31, 2011

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This was brought up on my talk, and this will be my only comment here. –Fredddie™ 15:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:AGF and calm down, man. You're overreacting here. --Rschen7754 19:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and the kicker... that you haven't pointed out even a discussion where this supposed allowance to use coordinates was determined. Before you ask, the wording you used was "their use is already allowed", which infers that there was some discussion reaching that conclusion. There is no substance to your claims, and your counterclaim is that we can't provide a discussion overturning the discussion that you haven't shown exists! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 19:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Use of coordinates is included in WP:RJL. As has been pointed out, multiple times, above. And once again what you say I have said is a misrepresentation.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement" - Bill Clinton. --Rschen7754 21:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
No, I assure you it is a direct quotation of what you said. Using WP:RJL to back up your position is a circular reference, and you should know we (as in wikipedia) don't accept those here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 22:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
A direct quotation of what I said? Then you'll have no problem providing a citation, will you? Do so, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Why should he, if you'll just twist/ignore what he says? --Rschen7754 22:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
This feels as fruitless as wiping a kittens nose in its pee to get it to stop peeing on the floor. If you can't be bothered to address basic points of debate, including but not limited to understanding what you yourself have posted, addressing points raised by others, and backing up your consensuses, then you are a waste of time. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 23:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring a lot of the crap above, Interstate 10 in Texas will likely never have every one of its junctions tagged with coordinate data. There are 370 junctions in that list. The table alone broke once upon a time just using {{jct}}. You'd seriously want to dump 370 more templates onto that page and see how far down the table the template limits are hit?
Now, I've never said I was anti-coordinate. I'm anti-wasted effort and pro-intelligence. The FAC directors have already indicated that they won't micromanage articles through that process for coordinates. Now, I'm all for adding coordinates to 10–15 or so junctions, if we can develop a method that doesn't add more blue links into tables that already have plenty of blue links. We've had WP:USRD articles at FAC where the reviewers wanted all of the "shield" graphics purged from the junction list table and the junction list in the infobox, and we're constantly reminded and reminding about WP:OVERLINKing issues. Adding {{coord}} unintelligently will compound the issues related to a "sea of blue links" and "too many icons" in use. That's why I'm in favor of limiting the total number of junctions tagged with coordinate data, if coordinate data is added.
Whether or not you (Pigsonthewin) like it or not, several other editors here have an opinion on "visual clutter". If you're willing to compromise on quantity of coordinates added, I know that I'm willing to compromise on how to display them. (I personally like a variation on how the UK is doing it with footnotes in a list.) If you're not willing to compromise, if the only solution to our discussions and debates is to give you only and exactly what you want, then there will be no deal. Imzadi 1979 → 01:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Who has said they want to "dump" 370 templates on an article? as I've already said we don't decide policy on a single (or few) extreme examples. If your concern was genuinely about the number of transclusions, you would be lobbying for a cap affecting all articles with lists of coordinates, not just those about roads - as it is there are articles working properly, with over 200 - and to limit the number of instances of {{jct}}. Whether or not you like it or not , we already have a compromise; that's the status quo, as reflected in the state of WP:RJL, prior to the edit war discussed above. The only change I want - for which no cogent opposition has been made - is a small addition to the wording of WP:RJL; outlined above, about the use of {{Coord}} and {{KML}}. Why does that require a limit on the number of coordinates which may be used in an article? And since when did Misplaced Pages require the making of deals? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and there's nothing in WP:OVERLINK to prohibit the use of multiple instances of {{Coord}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
No, but there is in WP:NOTDIR: #8 - A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight.
In treating the 370 verifiable sources with appropriate weight, it is clear some are overdetailing. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 17:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome to make that point at WP:GEO/ WP:COORD, or in a centralised discussion noted there, to try to overturn the status quo. Until you do, there is no restriction on the use of coordinates on that basis. And please turn down the hyperbole; as noted above, no-one has proposed using 370 sets of coordinates in an article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you therefore advocating that there are certainly cases where we must forbid the tagging of every single junction, if not for the visual sea of blue text, than for the technical inability of Misplaced Pages to handle such a situation? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 17:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I-10 in TX is an extreme example, but it is one that needs to be considered going forward. I don't care about other articles on Misplaced Pages with lists of coordinates, so I'll leave it to WP:GEO to figure out how to deal with articles that could hit the transclusion limits by using {{coord}}. I do care about the general quality and consistency of Misplaced Pages's articles on highways and notable roads. And, no, we don't have a compromise already. If you want my support for your initiative, you need to first acknowledge that my opinion (and it's shared by others) has value, and you need to work to address it. If not, there is no compromise here. As for overlinking, there are many, many editors who hold the opinion that the total amount of "blue ink" should be minimized in quality articles, and the examples in WP:OVERLINK are just the start. Imzadi 1979 → 16:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:GEO, WP:RJL, WP:COORD MOS:COORD and WP:LINEAR are all the results of compromise; one that already accounts for extreme edge cases like I10 in Tx. I have never failed to acknowledge anyone's opinion; whether I consider them to have value is for me, not you, to decide. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
That's funny. As an editor of linear features, I was never contact about this supposed compromise building. However, I can see that it is clearly the work of you and User:Tagishsimon.. WP:LINEAR is practically pointless, the creation of two biased editors pushing their bias. WP:RJL can't be used to argue against itself, as that is circular logic. WP:GEO is a wikiproject, which apparently has no bearing on anything (at least per your stance and your interpretation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). WP:COORD is a redirect to the same target as WP:GEO, but nice try attempting to provide more substance to your substanceless position. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 17:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Anyone less charitable than I would call you a liar. The second item from last on the very edit history you cite is one made by you, in 2010. Now it's time for me to ask you for citations again. Please provide evidence of me using WP:RJL to "argue against itself"; and of me saying that "wikiprojects no bearing on anything". Given your failure to provide citations which prove a dingle one of the many other things I've challenged you on, I won't be holding my breath. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not wasting any more effort. You take my arguments as is, or you give up the debate as you are unable to proceed with a thread of common decency and intelligence. Prove where I lied (but don't copy my post or I'll be an anal retentive prick because I have nothing better to do with my life) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 19:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Pre-RFC straw poll

This will only pass if it is unanimous, since... well, it's pointless to have a RFC if people won't abide by it.

Question: If we start a RFC regarding the question of coordinate tagging roads and have an uninvolved editor close it, will you abide by the results of the RFC?

(To clarify "abide" - Misplaced Pages is a volunteer project and Misplaced Pages can't force you to do anything. "Abide" means you're not going to revert over someone implementing the results of the RFC or continue to agitate over the issue at hand).

(To clarify "editor" - a post will be made on WP:AN, so probably an admin will be closing it out).

Yes
  1. Rschen7754 20:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  2. –Fredddie™ 20:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  3. Martinvl (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
  4. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 12:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  5. --Kumioko (talk)
  6. -- Sure, futile efforts can be fun! =-) Dave (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  7. As Dave said, futile efforts can be rewarding. Just ask anyone facing assimilation by the Borg about futility. Imzadi 1979 → 16:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  8.  VC  18:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  9. Sure. -- LJ ↗ 18:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
No
Abstain
  1. Please provide a link to the policy requiring unanimous support for starting an RFC; and, if there is one, define "agitate over". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
    There isn't. It's only to let me know if it's worth it. If you won't abide by the results, then why have it in the first place? By "agitate" I mean complaining about the outcome of the RFC in every place possible and screaming abuse and forum shopping everywhere. Once the RFC is done it's time to disengage. --Rschen7754 09:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Brief description of the RFC

Basically, editors are free to write their own proposals. Editors are free to support or oppose as many proposals as they want, and they are also given the opportunity to mark first choice, second choice, etc. We ask that lengthy comments and replies to comments be done somewhere else to keep the page manageable. The RFC will remain open between 14 and 30 days, depending on level of activity.

New proposals may be added after editors weigh in; it's the editor's responsibility to monitor the page for new proposals to support or oppose. Minor edits to proposals already existing should be clearly noted; again, it's the editor's responsibility to monitor the page for any changes that may change the editor's opinion. (However, major edits should be done with an entirely new proposal).

Any instances of canvassing / votestacking / etc. are not allowed. Please review WP:CANVASS; notices should be kept neutral. Any alleged instances should be noted in a place where the closing editor will notice and take this into account. Serious violations will be reported to the appropriate venue. Please remain civil; it's a volunteer project for goodness' sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rschen7754 (talk • contribs)