Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Archive 11

How should coordinates be formatted?

Please help with the discussion at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ridge Route/archive1; thank you. --NE2 01:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reference geo coordinates from an article

With some wonderful code, wikipedia now churns out clickable location maps of countries which add a new degree of interactability to the wiki ex: Indian_Institutes_of_Management . But the process of marking each point using coordinates is tiring and cumbersome especially if something like a clickable road map is to be made.
It would be very useful if one could reference the coordinates from an article, like geo:London would return the geographical coordinates of London and mark it on the map. This can really unleash the power of location maps. Also posted on bugzilla here-- ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 16:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Template to request coords

I've created Template:LocateMe. Should it go on their talk pages (as in the few examples currently tagged) or on the articles themselves (like other clean-up tags, such as clean-up itself, or "uncited" and so on? For now, please start using it (and advocating its use) if appropriate - just type {{LocateMe|April 2007}} (or whatever month we're in after this one)) on talk pages. Andy Mabbett 23:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

FAQs?

As a newcomer to this project, might I suggest that the following questions go on the project page (or in a FAQ linked from it), with better answers than these "starters":

• Q: How precise should the coordinates be?
  • A: Only as precise as needed for the size of place or structure; for a city, for instance, two or three decimal places or the nearest whole minutes - no need for seconds.

• Q: The place is very big - what coordinates should I give?
  • A: For a building, the main entrance; for a city, the nominated centre point (e.g from which road distances are measured), if there is one, or the location of the main administration building (Town or City Hall, etc.); for a park or open space, the approximate centre.

Though the points are currently covered, they're not immediately apparent; and a "FAQ" format is more easily absorbed by first-time visitors.

Comments? Additions? Brickbats? Andy Mabbett 23:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Roads

If we were to implement coordinates into the roads articles, how would we do it? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

See Ridge Route. Andy Mabbett 14:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

request for a bot to apply "LocateMe"

Please note my request for a bot to apply "LocateMe" to articles about places, in need of coordinates. Andy Mabbett 09:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you requested that bot tag the talk pages, which would be fine, but I don't see the point of tagging the article pages with an banner asking for a trivial piece of information to be added. In all probability the tags will stay there for a very long time, detracting from the article without having any benefit. If every wikiproject started pushing their project this way wouldn't all the articles look lovely? Yomangani^talk 15:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I first suggested the talk pages, but was told that using the article pages would be more appropriate. It's also in keeping with {{expand}}, {{ISBN}} and other "cleanup" type tags. Your reference to "trivial" information is unwarranted, and your final question, I presume, rhetorical. Andy Mabbett 20:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Andy Mabbett 20:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the coordinates are as trivial as ISBN numbers, but they certainly don't make or break an article, and citing other obtrusive templates that appear on the article page as a precedent for this one doesn't seem a particularly strong argument. Who benefits from the inclusion on the article page rather than the talk page? I'd be interested to know what the reasoning was from whomever suggested you put them on the article page. Yomangani^talk 22:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I add my voice against tagging articles. Tagging the talk page is sufficient to build a category list of articles to be tackled. Tyrenius has also spoken against tagging articles, at User talk:SatyrBot/Current project. So far 525 articles have been tagged. I do not think there is consensus for this action and would ask you to desist & reconsider. --Tagishsimon (talk)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#LocateMe bot --Tagishsimon (talk)

I'm absolutely against this being placed on the article page. It's not something the average editor will respond to. It is a specialist task. Tyrenius 04:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed: as I said at Template talk:LocateMe, this template should appear on the talk page (if anywhere). It is more like {{reqphoto}} than {{copyedit}}. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add Coordinate Display Format into User Preferences

Did anything ever come of the May 2005 suggestion to add Coordinate Display Format into User Preferences? I'd be strongly in favour. Andy Mabbett 12:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

New template replaces "coor" family

Important! Please note that {{template:coord}} has just been made available. It replaces the existing "coor" family of templates (which now redirect to it); simplifies data entry; standardises display; and deploys a Geo microformat. {{template:coord title}} will follow shortly. Please advise fellow editors, and update documentation, accordingly. Please also notify this project of any coordinate-listing templates which do not include coord. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 13:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Please be aware that when you make changes like this you break machine readability for other tools (like google earth). I'm not opposed to making changes, but our changes should be in the direction of consolidation, and I'm not sure that this change is going far enough in that direction. --Gmaxwell 14:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth - or anyone else - can now read the Geo microformat, regardless of what current or future template generates it; no need for it to try to parse numerous templates - and that's a great step towards "consolidation". This has been discussed for sometime; there have been plenty of chances for such issues to be raised. Andy Mabbett 14:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If google spidered our webpages any faster we'd probably have to block them. ;) The microformats don't help people working off dumps, which is the preferred way to work with all of the data. I raised this issue months ago when we first setup google earth's import, and I really don't appreciate your dismissive response. --Gmaxwell 17:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about working faster - it's just working "smarter". Surely WP is primarily for people working off pages, not data dumps? Andy Mabbett 17:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We have millions of pages, it is not reasonable for someone to have to make millions of http requests just to extract the locations of all our pages. We provide dumps for this purpose but the vast number of possible geocoding templates makes extraction from the page data unreliable. The addition of this template as yet another way to code coordinates in articles just makes the problem worse, when with a few minor additions to the templates we could solve the issue completely. --Gmaxwell 18:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Other issues aside, it seems that the way you want things to work prioritises the convenience of data manipulators like Google over and above the convenience of editors and the convenience of individual end users. It strikes me that that's a bad thing, so I hope I've misunderstood you. I'd be grateful for clarification, please. (Also, is there a better place of all of these issues to be discussed, which will involve more of the people involved?) Andy Mabbett 22:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

... Can you please spell out your concern in detal? I don't follow, so hopefully more detail would help me understand. I haven't intentionally suggested anything that would cause difficulty for editors and, in fact, I think having fewer geocoding templates should make life easier on all of us. Google was invoked because I've spoken to them directly on this exact issue and people here seem to care about them.... But our internal data extracts are in the same boat, things like Wikiminiatlas also need a straightforward way to extract our geodata. Scanning every article via HTTP is completely unreasonable. --Gmaxwell 22:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Outdent 1

The new template is intended to be easier for editors to use; and provides more standardised output for the benefit of end users. It also provides a Geo microformat, again for the benefit of end users (I trust that we agree that these are all good things?). It replaces three other templates (and eventually six, or nine; I'd proposed bot-replacing all the coor family with "coord"), which satisfies your "fewer geocoding templates should make life easier on all of us" comment, with which I wholeheartedly agree. Doesn't that also make things easier for wikicode parsers? Don't Google scan our HTML anyway? I'm not clear why the new template is less satisfactory for the internal uses you mention. Andy Mabbett 23:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we please capture the coord title functionality into this template? For example {{coord|latitude|longitude|display=title}}. The proliferation of geotemplates is making machine reading of wikitext very very hard to do well.--Gmaxwell 14:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you raise the specific changes you request with User:Quarl. Again, microformats will greatly increase the machine-readability of articles; see Project Microformats Andy Mabbett 14:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking from experience, *nothing* which comes in via transclusion is useful for machine readability of the Wikitext. If someone is working from the dumps they need a complete copy of the templates as well as a full Wikitext parser (um which means our horribly slow PHP one, since there is no other parser with complete template support) in order to use anything that comes out of templates. This is an unreasonable requirement.

I am reverting your changes to the instruction pages, we don't need yet another widespread uncoordinated breakage of machine readability unless it's going to actually solve some problems. --Gmaxwell 17:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It *is * solving problems; and it is not "uncoordinated" - you have had plenty of opportunity to comment, while this was being discussed, on numerous talk and project pages. I've restored the changes. Please discuss as resolution before reverting again. Andy Mabbett 17:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How am I supposted to know about discussion on a page whos existance I could not have known about? The changes were not discussed here as far as I know. Please don't make us look like idiots. I've spend a lot of time wearing the Wikimedia hat coordinating with reusers and researchers and making a part-way change to our wikitext format will just make our readability problems worse. I think the changes are a good step but we should make sure they address all the important issues and then mass push them across the project rather than making a part-way transisition which will leave yet another syntax that people have to support. --Gmaxwell 17:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to see my prior post on our interface problems]. --Gmaxwell 18:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To which [I replied on 31 March]. Andy Mabbett 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure enough, I missed it. :) Um, except they don't at all solve it for us. I realize that microformats are the current ultimate in buzzword compliance, but if implemented via templates they don't do anything to make our actual pages more machine readable. For example, how does coord's use of microformats help me write a bot that goes removes locations which are known to be incorrect or which adjusts the scale for georefs inside a given bounding box? .. We tell people who want to work with our data (including our own users) to use the dumps, but microformats transcluded via n-deep indirection are not helpful there.

Please note, I do strongly support us having microformats. My objections are that (1) we shouldn't change the project wide syntax without also addressing the other machine readability issues, and (2) we shouldn't break existing features (i.e. adjustable scale). Adding some simple modes to the coord template (one to adjust the title, one to output the lat, long in dec. deg. for use in other templates) would get us a lot of the way there. --Gmaxwell 22:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Outdent 2

When I said that they resolved problems, I was referring to machine readability of HTML pages; which they do assist. They won't help the machine readability unless they're added as discrete components in each page's wikicode - which is certainly do-able, but would require a lot of re-engineering elsewhere. I suppose that's a result of an organically-grown, rather than fully-spec'd, system. Still I'm glad that we;re finding at least some common ground. I don't know enough about the way templates are made to understand you last sentence (my understanding is of HTML and microformats); I hope Quarl will be here soon; or perhaps you can make the changes? Andy Mabbett 23:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Gah, it looks like we've just been having a misunderstanding. From the start I was only insisting that:

1. We should replace tags rather that adding more.
2. We can only do this if the new template covers the old features, which this doesn't yet.
3. We can also only do this if we have an active consensus, not simply a failure to object.
4. It might also be wise to contact the authors of some of the existing tools that use our geodata.
5. I'm not aware of any existing browser features that use microformats ... but we have wikiminiatlast *today*. Doesn't mean we shouldn't provide microformats, but it does mean we shouldn't break the tools.
6. We shouldn't make any wide scale geocoding template changes unless they resolve the outstanding issues of machine access.
7. We can resolve these issues by some simple additions to the proposed new template, but these additions might break the proposed syntax, so we shouldn't roll until they are ironed out.

Now that you have my attention, I'd be glad to work with you and everyone else to get a solution which fixes everything. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gmaxwell (talk • contribs) 23:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Thank you. I've numbered and sub-divided your points, for convenience. I agree them all in principle. I think "coord" satisfies #1. Where and how do you suggest we achieve #3? Do you have a list, for #4 (I have some separate issues I'd like to raise with Google, about microformats (uFs) rather than WP, if you could put me in touch - in confidence of course)? #5 - there are a number of browser tools which use uFs, such as Operator, Tails and WebCards for Firefox. For more, see the "implementations" sections for each uF on the uF wiki. As for #7, like I said, that's beyond me, but I'm happy to learn; and to assist n any way I can, and to do the subsequent work, updating documentation, informing editors, etc. Andy Mabbett 10:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"How am I supposted to know about discussion on a page whos existance I could not have known about?" - The issue was flagged up on this talk page, on this project's main page, on Template talk:Coor dms and on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Andy Mabbett 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Where was it discussed here, I can't find it. I only look at VP once a week or so, the SNR is terrible. ::shrugs:: --Gmaxwell 22:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the Parameters variable? - I think that the change to Template:coord should be reverted ASAP until the parameters can be included. The lack of the parameters variable means that the scale parameter is completely ignored, and maps are always requested at 1:300000. Theother parameters are not currently used by the geo-hack interface, but they probably will be used in the near future. Now users have no way of tagging what type of item is listed, what country it is in, or, most importantly, what scale it is. --Ozhiker 18:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure enough it doesn't pass scale. Blah! I was hoping we could get away without reverting the rest of the changes. *sigh* --Gmaxwell 18:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the redirects to Template:Coord until we can fix the parameter issue. - jredmond 18:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've referred the matter to User:Quarl, who edited the templates (at my request). Hopefuly, we can find a speedy remedy that will satisfy everybody, and meet everybody's needs. Andy Mabbett 21:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The parameter issue seems to have been fixed. See Template:Coord/doc#Usage. --Para 22:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Geographical coordinates is currently incorrect - it needs to be reverted to show Template:Coor as the primary coordinate system until it is successfully phased out.

Also, the documentation for Template:Coord does not mention Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Geographical coordinates. I think it should.

I am getting the impression that this new template is being pushed only by User:Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett). Is there anyone else in favor of making this change?

So far I cannot see any benefits but there are a lot of potential pitfalls. I don't think that the potential inclusion of geo-microformats are worth us accepting any loss of features of the existing templates, especially since the geo-hack page already has the geo-microformat.

--Ozhiker 00:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that most, of not all, of your concerns have been addressed in the preceding discussion. If you can see "potential pitfalls" which have not been addressed, then please identify them specifically. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 07:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok - the pitfalls I can see are mostly compatiblity and functionality concerns due to the enormous number of pages that use the template.

If the final HTML produced is different to the previous template, then:

1. Compatibility with all browsers, when template is in a variety of containers, positions and styles.
2. Compatibility with all templates that currrently use the coor templates
3. Compatibility with external tools, such as the indexer for google earth

Since the template is significantly different to the coor series in operation, the impact on the wikipedia servers should possibly be investigated, to make sure the new template does not create more lookups or other server load.

There is a good chance that functionality might be different in subtle ways that some people will perceive as a loss of functionality.

Functionality that is still missing that needs be implemented and tested before release:

1. Ability for article authors to control how the coordinates are displayed, either by displaying the same format as entered in the template or by specifically choosing a display format.
2. Parameters (eg scale, region etc) with ability for future expansion

New Features which would be useful:

1. Name tag for coordinates, allowing articles which have multiple coordinates on the page (eg Arthur Range) to tag each set of coordinates with a name for external parsers.

--Ozhiker 10:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Some of your issues are already resolved; I suggest you see Template:Coord/doc, which is still being updated by Quarl as I type. It may also be more appropriate to use its talk page, for further discussion, and especially for extra feature requests. Of your first set, there should be no significant changes, but I thought Google Earth parsed wikicode, not HTML? I still find some of your suggested pitfalls ("functionality might be different in subtle ways", for example) too vague to address. Andy Mabbett 10:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Update

Quarl is done updating {{coord}} and adding additional backwards compatibility. Please see his summary at Template_talk:Coord#Updates and comment there. We'll now need to look at how this works for wikicode parsers. I think he's done a great job. Andy Mabbett 11:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

May I take the chance to ask for another little feature: a title arguments. With lots of inline coordinates (i.e. Ridge Route) external usability of the data would be greatly enhanced. My ideal solution, forget about the display= argument, request a title= for every inline coordinate and put the one coordinate without it in the title. --Dschwen 21:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please ask on Template_talk:Coord#Updates. Andy Mabbett 21:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Templates with coordinates, but not using {{tl:coord}}

• {{Template:Geolinks-buildingscale}}
• {{Template:Geolinks-cityscale}}
• {{Template:Geolinks-naturalfeature}}

Articles that do not need coordinates

I am concerned at the recent indiscriminate tagging, by a bot, for the addition of coordinates, of articles that do not need them. This project's project page makes it clear that the project is about adding coordinates to articles that are about places (emphasis added). Yet the bot added a {{LocateMe}} to The Proms, which is a concert series, not a place. The bot's author has so far not accepted that this was inappropriate.

I have no affinity with the project, but I bring this matter to the attention of those who do. Such lack of discrimination risks bringing the project into disrepute.

Please can the project team reach a policy consensus on what articles should not have coordinates? Philip Trueman 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

From The Proms: "held annually in Central London". Andy Mabbett 21:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So what? I count over 20 mainspace articles each about a painting in the National Gallery, London. Which do you think is better: to have a rule that says that each article should have coordinates, or to have a rule that each article should refer to National Gallery, London and that that article should have coordinates and the painting articles shouldn't? What do you think the consensus would be on which rule is better? Philip Trueman 12:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As an enduser of the coordinate data (user:Dschwen/WikiMiniAtlas) I'd like for those paintings not to have coordinates unless they can be given with a precission comparable to the object size (that would be sub-meter). It makes no sense to clutter the map with gazillions of markers all at the exact same coordinates as the National Gallery marker (in this example). For a geospatial search application (show me all articles with 500ft) on the other hand it would make sense to code as many articles as possible. But again let me emphasize, that there must be a sane relation of precission and object size. --Dschwen 13:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I almost agree, but I have two questions. One is: What is the object size of a series of concerts (or a collection of jewellery, or a police force, or an annual military parade)? If there isn't a meaningful answer to the question, then it isn't a meaningful question. The other is: What are the coordinates actually in Wikipedia for? I'm not an enduser of the data, and I'm not sure what endusers like you actually do. If your aim is, say, to use your GPS receiver to help you go and look at a painting, then I'd imagine that the coordinates of the front door of the gallery would be more useful than the coordinates of the painting, especially if it is actually on the third floor. In the case of The Proms, perhaps the most useful coordinates for a first-time visitor would those of the back end of the Arena Day Ticket queue - something that doesn't exist for most of the year but can change every few seconds at 90 minutes before the start of a popular concert. Philip Trueman 16:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

From the top of my head I'd say if you cannot answer the questions above the articles should not be geocoded. If we added a time stamp or time interval to the coordinates it might make sense (ever loaded a GPS trail into GoogleEarth? You get a timeline widget to select what data to display!). But for now I'd say concentrate on the clear-cut cases, that should be enough work for quite some time. --Dschwen 18:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. But what I'm looking for is a policy consensus that will provide me with grounds for removing coordinates (or {{LocateMe}} tags) from articles (and talk pages thereof) that don't need them, such as The Proms (I think that's been done) or Kew Constabulary or Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom. I do not want an edit war with Andy Mabbett, or anyone else. Admittedly the matter is much less urgent now that we don't have tags defacing those articles. But, well, do we really need a LocateMe tag on the talk page of Crystal Palace Dinosaurs (it's the paintings argument again, though I think Nordic churches in London actually passes muster, at least as the article currently stands) or Art in Perpetuity Trust? I think I'll take Maureen Paley to WP:COIN while I'm at it. Philip Trueman 19:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The CP Dinosaurs could either be tagged with the generic coordinates for the park, or section of the park, where they reside, or with individual, in-line coordinates (perhaps by making the existing list into a table) for each one - see Manchester Ship Canal or Crossings of the River Severn for examples, albeit on linear features. Andy Mabbett 19:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've said in more detail over on Talk:The Proms#Location coordinates, I see an issue with context. If you simply say x is in London so in the article on X we'll just stick in the coordinates for London, it is not clear to a future reader of the article that those coordinates were chosen merely to represent London, and not something more specific to X, whereas if you don't put any coordinates for X, if the user doesn't know where London is, they can go to London, and it's fairly obvious there that coordinates (and a map scale) have been chosen to give a reasonable overview of London. On the specific example of pictures in the National Gallery, it occurs to me that to fully represent their location, you would also need some representation of height, since the gallery has more than one floor... (edit-conflicted with Philip, hence some overlap in content) David Underdown 16:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

One further thought, for a geo-spatial search, it seems to me that really we should be tieing-in with Wikipedia's categorisation scheme. To stick to the examples we've been using here, if the search "knows" that the National Gallery is within 500m, there should also be some way of using Category:Collections of the National Gallery, London (a sub-cat of Category:National Gallery, London) to pick up those articles in the search too, rather than having to individually geo-tag each picture article. David Underdown 16:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

One more, it seems to me that to a large extent the coordinates are meta-data, and a number of people seem to see them as simply being an unnecessary level of detail for an encyclopaedia article. It occurs to me that you may find less resistance to the introduction of this data if an approach similar to {{persondata}} is used, meaning the data is (are?) hidden from human readers by default, those with an interest can add something to their css to make it visible, or use some sort of template which hides most of the data by default (eg something like the parameter used in {{Province of Canterbury}}. Further, on the idea of geo-spatial search, it seems to me taht particularly for something like London, rather than a single co-ordinate, you need a set of co-ordinates defining a boundary, anything within that boundary should return the article in you search results, as well as anywhere up to x metres from the boundary. Again this would need to be added in an "invisible" form for the most part,a s it would be entirely meaningless and obstructive for most human readers. Otherwise, artilces which take the "London" lcoation wouldn't appear on your geo-spatial search until you approached the "centre" given in the article - making Charing Cross seem even more interesting than it actually is. David Underdown 15:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your taking the time to comment, I have no interest in hiding such data; I view that as harmful (and there are similar issues with Persondata, which are not on-topic here). There is already a facility for users who wish to hide coordinates to do so, with CSS. Andy Mabbett 15:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, hang on. I regard anything that detracts from the readability of an article, by a human, as harmful. Wikipedia is (IMHO) first and foremost an encyclopedia intended to be consulted and read by humans, not a database to be queried by computer applications. If coordinates are to appear in the text of an article, they should be the coordinates of something meaningful to a human, and should not overpower the rest of the article. So, for example, a table in an article on a motorway giving the coordinates of every junction would certainly be overkill for the purposes of readability. I'm not saying that information isn't meaningful or useful, just that having it in the body of the article would detract from the readability of the article. If the user (and any computer application) is then provided with a means to burrow down into the article and unearth the coordinates than that's fine too. Some data should be hidden to first sight. Philip Trueman 16:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"I regard anything that detracts from the readability of an article, by a human, as harmful." - as do I. I also regard the hiding of useful data as detracting from its readability.

"[coordinates] should not overpower the rest of the article" - I agree.

"a table in an article on a motorway giving the coordinates of every junction would certainly be overkill for the purposes of readability" - not if added to the existing tables of junctions, for example. Andy Mabbett 16:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett 16:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm, yes it can be. I suggest that the six entry full-page-width table that used to appear in Tinsley Viaduct is a good example. It was disproportionate, and detracted from the readability of the article. I wouldn't though, have a problem if tables of junction data, coordinates and all, were hived off into subsidiary articles. Philip Trueman 16:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work by having "rules". Andy Mabbett 16:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? Why then so many policies, guidelines, manuals of style etc., etc.. David Underdown 16:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. You probably misunderstood WP:IAR here... --Dschwen 18:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)