Talk:Stony Head, Tasmania

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Mitch Ames in topic 41°00'00.0"S, 147°00'00.0"E

41°00'00.0"S, 147°00'00.0"E

edit

Re [1][2][3][4][5][6]

I continue to assert that the existence of 41°00'00.0"S, 147°00'00.0"E within the range is is no more notable that the existence of any other geographic point, and ought not be there.

However if it is there, it should be verifiable, hence requires a citation. It is not quite as obvious as the sky being blue, as Macktheknifeau implies with this edit comment linking to Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Note also that WP:FACTS explicitly says "this essay ... should not be considered a replacement for the core content policies" (Wikipedia:Verifiability in this case.) WP:FACTS continues "if someone else is challenging material ... then it is by definition likely to be challenged" and so "so must be cited".

So again I request a citation to verify the fact. Presumably it should be easy to find one. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am asking you to provide a reference to support the statement that a specific geographic coordinate is within the bounds of the range. It's not ludicrous - verifiability is a core policy. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't think that statement needs a supporting citation for it's location – any map shows that. The question is why it should be mentioned in the article at all. IOW, sources for its notability are required. Without them, it's irrelevant fluff. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
any map shows that — Then it ought to be easy to provide the citation. But more accurately it needs a map that includes both the boundaries of the range, and geographic coordinates for reference (lines of latitude/longitude, or the coordinates of sufficient points on the range boundary as to reasonably illustrate that it circumscribes the point in question).
Without them, it's irrelevant fluff — That was my original preference, one that I maintain. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I removed the paragraph in March, citing this talk page, but Macktheknifeau restored it. I've removed it again, because there is still no indication that the point is significant. Macktheknifeau, please explain why that particular point is important enough to mention. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Please explain why that particular point is not important enough to mention? Wikipedia isn't space limited. There's no reason to exclude it. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply