Talk:Portage Lakes, Ohio

Original research

I've reworked the altitude and coords bits, calling them OR, because the numbers in this edit were not given by any single source, but were rather averages of data from two different entities: as such, it was a synthesis of information from published sources, rather than (1) a mathematical calculation [there's no guarantee that the correct altitude is the average], or (2) derived from a single source, as is the case when a single GNIS entry lists multiple coords for a place that appears on multiple maps. Nyttend (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hardly original research, actually read WP:OR for a change. By averaging PP and CDP, I was trying to reach as compromise with the actual "Portage Lakes, Ohio" populated place "town" data and the "ARTIFICIALLY" created larger U.S. census CDP entity. Per WP:Cities, where a place actually was or is "trumps" artificial entities like a CDP.

The GNIS reference link you provided was bad - i.e. did not go to any Portage Lakes feature.

What "bothers" me is that you keep putting bad unsourced coordinates into the article, specifically those you keep adding as an external link, it does not match any of the known published coordinates and is at the wrong place on the map, too far South and West. AGAIN, External link Map-It is no longer part of the WP:Cities guidelines for the U.S. Accordingly, I am removing them, and reverting to the official Populated Place coordinates.

I double- and triple- checked, 1058169 provides a link to 1058169, and

+41° 0' 26" N, 81° 31' 37" W are accurate Portage Lake, Ohio coordinates which plot at the appropriate spot on the map, 1,053 feet (321 m) is USGS's published elevation, generally published elevations are based on a surface model rather than a NOAA Geodetic Survey benchmark, so elevations are typically accurate within 100 feet (30 m) or so.

You not verifying your own work before or after updating really bothers me. The "original" coordinates in the article were wrong (they mapped to the wrong place) which is why I updated the article with USGS GNIS data in the first place, and I admit to missing updating latitude 40 to 41 in my initial update, but you are wasting your own time and mine by updating coordinates without verifying your work.

LeheckaG (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noting the error in the GNIS: I forgot to copy/paste correctly. As far as the guidelines bit goes: the entire point of the Mapits is to be where they are on virtually all US municipality and CDP articles; their usage was debated by either the Geographic Coordinates wikiproject, or the External Links wikiproject, or both, and found to be appropriate to be placed at the end as well as elsewhere. Moreover, one or two users' opinions, decided quickly, are surely not enough to change longstanding consensus (especially as agreed upon and supported by one or two other projects) used in tens of thousands articles nationwide. Nyttend (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You still do not "GET IT", please see http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/blk2000/st39_Ohio/Place/3964136_PortageLakes/CBP3964136_A01.pdf.

Note: the coordinates you keep re-posting are too far South and West compared to the CDP boundary tract area (published in the boundary tract map - or you can download Metadata) or the "historical" Portage Lakes populated place area which has mostly been annexed into other communities.

Also NOTE how inaccurate the Census geographers coordinates and their maps are. Please leave Geography, mapping, coordinates to government organizations responsible for professional surveys (Department of Interior, USGS, BLM, NOAA - Geodetic Survey, USACE, USCG, ...) and not Census "guestimates". The USGS Populated Place coordinates are a more accurate representation for either the historic populated place area or the CDP, because of the Census inaccuracies was why I went with an average between the CDP and PP coords. and elevation to begin with ... Please check and fix your work.

Actually Mapit is not (on "all"), start going through WP:Cities Featured Articles Cleveland, Ohio, Washington, D.C. ... and you will see that Mapit is NOT on many U.S. cities featured articles.

There have been multiple discussions regarding the number, kind, quality of coordinates in articles, and the consensus on several occasions was they should:

• be in the appropriate Infobox(es)
• "main" coordinates be in the Title bar
• be included in tables if relevant, possibly be in relevant sections (like Geography) of the text if or when necessary to describe; or in the PAST to work-around the issue where Infobox Settlement did not set "title" coords, this has been "fixed" with the addition of the Infobox Settlement coordinates_display=inline,title parameter - if set, it does exactly that through Geobox coor and Coord, if not set, then it does the default/old behavior of display=inline.

The issue is that the more "duplicate" sets of coordinates there are, the more likely they are to have an inaccuracy, especially if or when a contributor updates one set and does not catch all of the rest.

Please THINK for a minute, the point or purpose of the CDP-derived articles was to stub-out articles for "notable" places. CDP-derived articles are not intended to be a "republication" of the U.S. Census Bureau statistics. LeheckaG (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

historical population has been omited

why isnt the historical population shown? i known that due to the 2 city formation annexes of Green and New Franklin that its declined over the years but id still like it to be shown. the key thing of a census designiated place is a head count and not knowing how many live there over the years is a terrible thing to omit from something this article is based around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.107.144 (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)