Talk:Murwillumbah

James Doyle

famed media personality does not get a google hit - probably hoax item unless... SatuSuro 20:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Now removed, no reference supplied. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

coord_type

User:Deor, while refing the coordinates, also removed the parameter |coord_type= from the Template:Infobox Australian place as "unparsable & unnecessary". The template's documentation shows that parameter as supported and it's necessary to provide a more sensible scale for the map. Without that parameter, as seen here, the map covers an area to the south as far Bathurst, to the west beyond Charleville, and to the north to Heron Island. With the parameter, as seen here, it only extends to Grafton, the Cecil Plains, and Kilcoy – a much more sensible scale. I suggest to restore that parameter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: I don't know what map you're looking at, but some online mapping services don't respond to our "scale" or "dim" parameters, no matter what they are. One that does is Google Maps, and when I click on that link from the GeoHack page, I get a map showing a much smaller area than the one you describe. The default scale for coordinates in Template:Infobox Australian place is 1:100,000 (as that is the scale for the "city" type, which is the template's default), and that is almost always appropriate for a settlement.

The problem I was correcting is that the page was being flagged by one of our coordinate-error tools (scroll down to just after all the "Module_talk" entries) as passing unparsable info to {{coord}}, since you had used "coord_type=dim:30km" rather than "coord_type=city_dim:30km", as the infobox template's documentation calls for. You can re-add it that way if you want, but dim:30km will cause a displayed map (at least a Google Map) to cover more, not less, area than the default, which is equivalent to dim:10km. Deor (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I was looking at the map shown by the downward pointing triangle on a globe between the word "Coordinates:" and the actual coordinates at he top right of the page, the WikiMiniAtlas. Going from either article version through the Geohack page, all maps, including from Google and even from WikiMiniAtlas, are identical (save for your coordinate refinement) regardless from which page I come, but vastly different between map providers. The Google maps are very zoomed in, not even reaching the mouth of the Tweed River, not giving proper geographical context. I find the access through Geohack rather clumsy and only look at the embedded WikiMiniAtlas, and my use of |coord_type= improved that map's scale. As it doesn't seem to make any difference to the Geohack provided maps, I'm going to add |coord_type=city_dim:30km when a need to edit the article again arises. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it will make a difference to the GeoHack maps, because then the "dim" parameter will be parsed properly (the Google Map, for instance, will look like this); but if you prefer that, it's fine by me. Deor (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

An attractive pic, including the river and Mt Warning, for the lede, anyone?

This would brighten up the article, I feel. (Hey, I've just spent a couple of hours sprucing up the whole article, re-writing most of it. Medals welcome hahaha.) Boscaswell talk 09:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Map of NSW in article not showing location of Murwillumbah but somewhere in Kosciuszko

Image shows far southeast NSW, not far northeast, as location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3400:219:86F4:F1CB:82BA:AFB1:9254 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)