This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Astronomy: Solar System Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as High-importance). Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

There are so many "Template:Flagicon"s (~800, starting at C64) and "Template:Coord"s (~100, but will grow, also starting ~C64), what does everyone think about splitting the page up somehow? Perhaps 0-999 and A00-Z99? I'd hate to split it into 3 (won't be necessary upon further inspection). Another option might be to hard-code the flag icons.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shortening the {{coord}} templates doesn't have a significant effect on the template-rendering issue, unfortunately.

Hard-coding the flags will work, since the entire page renders prior to the addition of {{coord}}s, so the template-load would simply go into {{coord}} instead of {{flagicon}}. (Thank you for adding them btw, R. J. Mathar! Even with this secondary issue, I'd rather deal with this than be missing coords for all of them...)

An intermediate option would be to replace the {{flagicon}}s with their intermediate template, saving 2000-some-odd template-resolves (this might be just as effective (i.e. not effective) as shortening the {{coord}} template calls; have to check).

Do we want to hard-code the flag icons is another question. There is undoubtedly a lot of back-end maintenance to make sure that that template family is functioning properly, and we wouldn't want the flags to slowly drift from reality. If hard-coding isn't an option because of this, and we can only pick one, I prefer to keep {{coord}} instead of {{flagicon}}, but would of course prefer both.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{flagicon}} -> {{country data}} helps a bit more than shortening the {{coord}} templates, but it's still not enough...   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rfassbind, any ideas?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the "ping" Tom. Unfortunately, the list of observatory codes is not going the way I intended to. Neither the sectioning (which impedes the grouping of all observatories by country) nor the usage of the {{coord}} template I find helpful. Instead, a simple external link – such as map – would have been suffice for an observatory's coordinates. This would have prevented the errors due to the excessive amounts of templates in the first place. As you might remember from my post on WT:AST, I began working on the conversion from parallax constants so that the coordinate-ELs could be generated from MPC's source page. Unfortunately I'm not quite there yet.

These things happen. No one is to blame. That's Wikipedia. I also had to run into template errors due to excessive usage before I learned not to jump into large edit sessions without prior verification. As of now, I simply cannot approve of the made/proposed changes. I will therefore start a new "fork" on my userspace and come back in 1 or 2 years with a, in my view, far more superior version of the list of observatory codes, seeking to replace what is now on display. Rfassbind – talk 21:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some more progress. Currently, rendering stops ~E00. However, using decimal degrees in {{coord}} is less expensive than using HMS format (because, in part, fewer parameters are passed!). I've tested decimal degrees and have improved the rendering limit down to ~J67! I think we have a chance. There's also the possibility of using one of the subtemplates (which the template advises against...) instead. Will do more testing.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I tried a few other methods, and the farthest I could get down is ~K43 by using decimal degrees, since they have to be converted in order to create the URL anyway. This helped dramatically, but it's still not enough.

R. J. Mathar, the best solution I think is to do as Rfassbind suggested, and instead of using {{coord}}, create a link formatted in the same way, i.e. 51.28°N 0.0°E for 000. What do you think?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As there is a clear announcement to edit this page in the future such that all my editing will be in vain (happens often in Wikipedia...), I'll obviously stop right here from adding any further data or putting any further effort into this. - R. J. Mathar (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Mathar, I think you misread the discussion above. Perhaps Rfassbind will make some minor future changes to the coord precision, but the issue was largely the template threshold, and that issue is resolved via an external link in place of {{coord}}. If you wish, I can convert the existing DMS coordinates to decimal degrees, maybe via {{DMS2Deg}} (just kidding...no more templates), and create the external links. I just need to know where you got the original coordinates (or if you can copy them into your sandbox and send me a link), and I can complete it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates are obtained in one of three equivalent ways (i) Download the geocentric coordinates from the MPC web page and process them with my Java program of vixra:1802.0035 (ii) click on the Observer-Location change button in NASA's Horizon, insert the 3-alpha-letter-code in the search box, and read the coordinates from the web page (complement them where they use >180 deg for the westerly locations), (iii) use the ARI interactive interface. Converting the DMS format to degrees does not help, because it saves only a few bytes relative to the total of 100 and more bytes per Coord-macro-expansion. The only option to include all coordinates is indeed to replace the macro by some expanded format; alternatively one might opt to include only "important" coordinates and to delete others (by any criterion of importance...). R. J. Mathar (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the template issue is resolved, this page is currently 533,198 bytes long; ; that's ridiculous. WHat's the best way to split it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While this list is indeed very large, and a split seems appropriate per WP:SIZESPLIT, it completely undermines what this list is made for. An easy textual search for a minor-planet discovering observatory based on an observer's name, a location, or a fragmentary/alternative observatory name is no longer possible. In addition, a split brakes the informative by-country/state sorting feature as well as template {{Obscode}} used in hundreds of minor-planet articles. I don't try to change anyone's mind, I have already learnt that this is hardly possible, but if this list needs to be chopped into unhelpful pieces, then it should be discussed on WT:AST. Rfassbind – talk 05:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No; it should be discussed here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What other split could there be, Rfassbind? Unless there's some other way, I have to support the split as executed by Venomous Sniper. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Venomous Sniper who made the split has been blocked and probably won't participate in the discussion. I have now reverted to the original status. This also includes a move made recently from List of observatory codes to List of astronomical observatory codes, which has not even been mentioned in the discussion so far. I don't think this kind of action is appropriate as the situation gets more and more confusing. Rfassbind – talk 14:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up, I could reduce the lists size by 20% or 100Kb with one edit only. I think there is room for more. I would also consider to place non-list content (description, external links) to a separate page rather to than breaking up the sortable table. Rfassbind – talk 15:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Venomous Sniper will be unblocked. The move to the new title was because 'observatory' alone is not specific enough, and could mean any kind of observatory. The lead of this article talks specifically about astronomical observatories too. That was separate from the page length issues.

A reduction of 100kB is good, but the article is still too large. It's no longer an urgent concern but reducing the size further is necessary for any major improvement to the article. I certainly welcome further reductions as you have described. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For basic info like name, code or country, we can keep it in one page. Its likely an exception of WP:SIZESPLIT.--Manlleus (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative split would be by continent. pauli133 (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article links Obscode 601 to a location in Dresden/Saxony/Germany, shows the flag of Germany, but the link is to a village in the Caucasus. This does not fit; the URL to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelhardt_Observatory is just wrong . R. J. Mathar (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]