Talk:ISO 6709

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Script error: No such module "Banner shell".

  • This is insufficient information - The format for these coordinates is needed. Was the table (created 2004-09-22[1], deleted 2005-07-15[2]) wrong? Has this standard been superseded? As is, this article resembles a stub.
NeoAmsterdam 07:46, 2005 July 25 (UTC)
  • I agreed. I've supplied recent updates and details. Now it's no longer stub, is it?

Aprasinos (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

But why did you delete the format table http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISO_6709&diff=next&oldid=448922755? ChemTerm (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Annexes

Currently only D, F, H are shown. Could the others be added, even with only very little content, so readers see what is in the standard? ChemTerm (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ISO 6709. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Template:Sourcecheck

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Proposed merge of Decimal degrees into ISO 6709

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
consensus not to merge. Klbrain (talk) 06:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

subset, superset fgnievinski (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose – ISO 6709 may have incorporated the definition of decimal degrees, but the concept itself is general, exists independently of any international standards, and presumably predates ISO itself by quite a while. The current two-word proposal isn't particularly clear or convincing either. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.