Template talk:Oscoor

Orphaning

After I had changed all the templates that used oscoor, I found there were about 900 articles left which used oscoor directly. Almost without exception in these articles, rather than simply replace oscoor with OS_coord, it would be better to use a different template. The main changes needed are:

1. {{oscoor|TQ518027|TQ 518 027}} → {{gbmappingsmall|TQ 518 027}} - example
2. {{oscoor|SX148971|OS grid reference SX 148 971}} → {{gbmapping|SX 148 971}} - example
3. {{oscoor|SU552175_region:GB_scale:100000|Map sources}} → {{oscoor gbx|SU552175}} - example
4. osgridref = {{oscoor|TF464882|TF 464 882}} → osgraw = TF 464 882 - example
5. (used for a couple of cases - now fixed)
6. {{Oscoor|TQ355652|TQ 355 652}} → gbgridref = TQ 355 652 - example - windmill - see below

The scope of the edits can be judged from this list of all the pages involved as at 2011 Jan 31.

To assist with these edits, I have created this tool: coorphan.php.

Please join in and use it! It is, I hope, self-explanatory in its use. Notes:

• The most common edit (No. 4 in the list above) is to articles using template:infobox church. For these, about 350 articles, I intend to create a bot.
• A good suggestion has been made below re windmills, so perhaps we don't bother with those for the moment - see this offer to do edit No. 6 above. But there is still useful work to be done.
• If you attempt to save the edit page straight away, you will get "we could not process your edit due to a loss of session data". Always do "show preview" or "show changes" or just save twice. This limitation is for, probably insuperable, technical reasons. (Techies, read this.)
• I also very occasionally get a spurious "edit conflict" message. That probably would be superable - if I knew how to super it.

— RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Just as a passing comment - I wouldn't suggest this unless you already had plans for these articles, but how about taking this opportunity to ask the question whether these articles should be using OS refs at all? My feeling should be that for "routine" geolocation, the primary identifier should be the long/lat as being the more "universal" - a German or Peruvian or Kiwi may not readily recognise an OS ref, but they will long/lat. OS refs do have some advantages, not least that they are often referenced, I'm just saying that that for some articles, it'd be better to just relegate them to an infobox say rather than in the main text. TV transmitter articles are one example which often seem to have OS refs in the main text for instance. I'd also suggest that the likes of {{Infobox windmill}} and {{Infobox church}} might absorb {{gbmapping}} etc into the template code so that you only have to pass them a simple OS reference and not a {{oscoor}} equivalent - one less template for new users have to worry about is a little gain for usability, and it also makes it easier to make changes in the future, as you'd just have to change the infobox template code rather than every article that uses them. Just seems the sort of change that it would make sense to do now, since you're proposing bulk changes anyway.Le Deluge (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Grid refs are vital for anybody using the Ordnance Survey's superb paper maps. They are also the basis of the Geograph website which is a useful source of images for Wikipedia - eg. http://www.geograph.org.uk/gridref/SE0904 . My No. 4 edit above does precisely what you suggest for churches - accepts a raw grid ref. I will certainly look into doing the same for windmills. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed; I look at an OS paper map, note that the grid ref of a particular feature is SU525905 (it doesn't matter whether I use 1:50000 sheet 164 or 174, or 1:25000 sheet 170 - the grid reference is the same for all of them), and can make this link: http://getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/getamap/frames.htm?mapAction=gaz&gazName=g&gazString=SU525905 for my own private use, or I can use {{gbmapping|SU525905}} (which gives grid reference SU525905) for Wikipedia. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying get rid of OS refs - quite the contrary, they could probably be usefully added to some more infoboxes. But they shouldn't be the primary means of geolocation, longitude/latitude via {{coord}} is a) more understandable to international readers and b) allows everything to be routed through Geohack, which gives you two-click access to Geograph, Get-a-map and its more user-friendly counterparts in the OS layer on Bing Maps and Where's the Path?, geolocated Commons images and much more. There will be specific instances where you'll want OS refs, but that's all. Another minor advantage is that I've had problems accessing rhaworth.com in the past, which completely stuffs anything "clever" relying on OS refs. Oh, I've thought of another case where the people who write the articles are quite OS-centric, aside from transmitters, and that's nature reserves. Not really my area, I don't know if they even have an infobox but if not, they could probably do with one that includes OS refs. Le Deluge (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you not think that SU525905 goes through GeoHack? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course UK-related articles should use OS Grid Refs. Many people in the UK are more familiar with those than they are with degree coordinates. There's no reason why the two cannot co-exist together on articles. Mjroots (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please redirect to Template:Ordnance Survey coordinates as it's currently a double redirect. Peter James (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)