|WikiProject Geographical coordinates|
|Note: changes to this template may take several days to propagate to wmflabs.
The template has a sandbox for design work and testing. If changes are not immediately visible try purging the cache ( ). Other globes or bodies are located on subpages, such as Template:GeoTemplate/moon. Some of their talk pages redirect here. Do not delete these subpages even if they do not appear to be used! For test coordinates, see /test coordinates.
|edit||Frequently asked questions (FAQ)|
Other common questions? edit
GeoHack itself deserves to be in the list.
Not just for Antipodes.
But one would think "why would I need the link if I am already looking at it (in the URL bar)?"
Well, otherwise it takes a lot of experiments to figure out the basic GeoHack URL could be as simple as
I suggest LROC Quickmap by Arizona State University as an addition to current external mapping providers. It is official, feature rich with many data layers and has very easy URL defined format to create links like following URL creates a point location to 33.33°N, 33.33°W but polygons and paths can also be defined to mark regions, rover tracks, abstract features etc.
Quickmap has many map projections methods like Orthographic(far side, near side, south and north pole), Equidistant cylindrical and 3D globe which can be useful for certain locations, for example polar locations are better visible in orthographic projection compared to 3D globe and Equidistant cylindrical. Ohsin 16:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Following up on a request on my talk page: (Special:PermaLink/921775139#Please_adjust_page_protection). This is a rather special style of template, it is fully move protected as it is called from external sources thus the full-move protection; it has been the subject of vandalism which can also be very disruptive, thus the unusual ECP protection. I may have otherwise used TPROT edit protection - but it has routine good faith maintainers and this is an anti-vandalism control. — xaosflux Talk 20:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
make-work log entries are not necessaryYou've spent FAR more effort on responses than it would take to simply label your rationale correctly. Furthermore, you requested we continue the discussion here. Now it's back to your talk page to refer it further to WP:ANI. Why the wild goose chase? Why not simply update the rationale so there's no confusion in the logs? Buffs (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)