Talk:Palestine grid

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Palestine

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

British Empire

	British Empire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

The Palestine grid was also used in Transjordan (at least in the west of the country), as proved by maps. However I don't have a clear statement to that effect suitable for citing. Zero^talk 04:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using PAL grid on current towns[edit]

This is an historical system which was used for a very short time. It isn't used anymore as the article itself states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.117.174 (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but a lot of archaeological sources still use *only* that grid-no. Like Sharon, Petersen, Pringle. If you remove more, I will report you for vandalism Huldra (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean they have to go into the infobox. I can see a slight reason why you would use it for depopulated Palestinian villages from prior to 1948 but otherwise, it is obsolete. Can you bring another example of a 2nd cordinates system that is used anywhere on wikipedia? If you do, you might have a case, but as it stands, those numbers means very little (more like nothing).

Also, if you insist on putting it in, please call it ICS (Israeli Cassini Soldner) since it is the most recent name of the system.95.86.117.174 (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found Irish grid reference system but it is still in use so it isn't a good example.95.86.117.174 (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, no, as I said, it is the only identification given for several of the most "heavily" used sources here. Btw, take a look at Amka where Israeli Transverse Mercator is also inserted. I see a lot of the "Hadashot Arkheologiyot"-sources only use ITM; if you feel like it: please, please *do* insert the ITM: I would be delighted if you did so. Huldra (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ITM system is currently used in Israel and as such isn't obsolete. You are using an obsolete system with it's old name. 95.86.117.174 (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Should the Palestine grid, obsolete system, be used in infobox?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is to retain the Palestine grid. The comments that it is used by reliable sources that are used is a strong argument in the discussion. AlbinoFerret 16:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Palestine grid, an obsolete system, be used in infobox of current places in addition to the int'l system?
If yes, should it appear as PAL grid or ICS grid, the most recent name. 23:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Are you saying that Palestine grid is equal to Israeli Cassini Soldner? Huldra (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Or rather, this is what the article says! After the establishment of the State of Israel, the Palestine grid continued to be used under the name of the Israel Grid or the ICS grid 95.86.117.174 (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, as the article says, "with 1000km added to the northing component to make the north-south range continuous.". IP, what is your excuse for chopping the sentence in the middle? ISC numbers are different from PAL numbers. Zero^talk 11:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for real??? The fact the system covers more area doesn't change the numbers. As the person who actually inserted this info, I would expect you to know it. If you have difficulties understanding it, read the lead of Israeli Cassini Soldner which clarifies it. source. 95.86.117.174 (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that the rudest ones are always the most ignorant? It's nothing to do with the area covered, it is an adjustment of the numbers. That's why it says at Israeli Cassini Soldner, "To avoid the existence of negative coordinates in the southern Negev, the False Northing of ICS was increased by 1000000." That's why the coordinates for the Western Wall in ICS are given as 172249/1131586 but in PAL they are 172249/131586. See that little extra "1"? You can see it in action at amudanan; select the old israel grid from the pull-down menu. Zero^talk 23:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Why is that the rudest ones are always the most ignorant?" – Dunning–Kruger effect. But, calling another editor rude and ignorant is also pretty rude. :-/ — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that editor don't refer to information inserted by them? From Palestine grid The fact that those southern regions would have negative north-south coordinate then became a source of confusion, which was solved by adding 1000 to the northern coordinate in that case. So the '1' addition was done already on the old cordinates and wasn't introduced when the system was renamed ICS.

Still completely wrong. PAL added 1000 to the very southern part of Palestine only, below about 70km south of Beersheba. The northing there had a sudden jump from 999 to 000. ICS added 1000 to all of Palestine so that there was no jump. That's what it says, I don't know why you don't read more carefully. Zero^talk 05:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now you make stuff up. Let's admit - you thought (and most probably still think) those are the same system but insist for the heck of it. Gavish (p. 74) says the change was done during british mandate. Can you provide anything that suggest differently? 95.86.117.174 (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gavish says no such thing, not even close. The only "evidence" you have produced is based on faulty reading and misunderstanding of the subject. Please stop. Zero^talk 15:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order to avoid negative values, the British set the value of the zero line at 1,000, so that any place south of the line would have positive values; Elat would thus be at 884 of the northern coordinate. - don't lie if you haven't checked it. 95.86.117.174 (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you really not see the difference between "any place south of the line" and all of Palestine? Can you find any mandate-era source that shows Jerusalem with a northern coordinate greater than 1000 (apart from the Military grid)? Before you reply, read the policy WP:NPA which is going to get you blocked quite soon. Zero^talk 18:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should look at your own comments before showing off the WP:NPA card. Your reading is extreamly selective and you completely misrepresent Gavish's words. Can you find a source that supports ICS making a change to the grid. Huldra herself writes virtually all the sources I use these days give the Palestine grid numbers, though some call it "the old Israeli Grid numbers". Obviously those are the same!!! 95.86.117.174 (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, PAL should be given. It is still the most common system cited in archaeological and historical works (see list made by Huldra), and therefore it is not obsolete for scholarly purposes. Zero^talk 11:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This acadmic book states explicitly that the Palestine grid "is still used today, as can be seen in many of the figures in this book". (Note that the book is a collection of articles from a conference in Israel and the figures mentioned are across multiple papers.) Zero^talk 23:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That part was written in 1996 or 2 years after the new grid system was introduced and almost 20 years ago. hardly relevant. 95.86.117.174 (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is trivial to find uses of PAL in fine sources right up to the present. Zero^talk 15:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, do you know the site http://twcc.fr/# . It makes conversion to UTM relatively easy (maybe the +1000 should be added manually?). If it can be hotlinked within the template, the question becomes mostly academic. trespassers william (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice site. It skips over ICS altogether and calls the Palestine Grid "Israel 1923" though. I see no reason why both PAL and ITM can't be listed, though for those of us writing articles about the history of these places, PAL is by far the most useful. That's why reference texts in history and archaeology use it almost exclusively. Even those which give ITM usually give PAL as well, because it is used as a standard site identifier when moving between different sources. Apart from the war against the word "Palestine" which is all too common around here, no valid reason has been given for removing it. Zero^talk 23:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, virtually all the sources I use these days give the Palestine grid numbers, though some call it "the old Israeli Grid numbers". I don´t care too much about what you call it, but I object --strongly- to removing them. Finding the places mentioned in Barag, 1979 (see User:Huldra/Barag1283) depends on them, so does Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, 1977, (see User:Huldra/HA), Karmon, 1960 (see User:Huldra/Karmon) and all the Finkelstein, Khalidi, Petersen, Pringle, Ellenblum and Sharon-books, (see User:Huldra/Sources) Huldra (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention all of the mandate era maps that we rely on a lot. Zero^talk 23:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the grid seems to be used exclusively in old documents and academic sources. Not sure it belong in the infobox at all, but can understand why other editors will argue for difference. The name should be ICS as it is the most recent name of the system. The name 'Old Israeli Grid' seems to be translation from Hebrew and not a name often used in English. 95.86.117.174 (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I would love to see, say, Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, 1977, or Karmon, 1960 updated (both have many typos): but I suspect that will not happen soon. We will probably be stuck with those sources for years to come, regarding the 1596 taxes and the 1799 map...just for a start. You have simply not given a very convincing argument for change. Wikipedia usually go for the common name, Now, if you could demonstrate that ICS is the most common name in the sources used; then you would have a case. So far it is mostly claims. Huldra (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the age of Google Earth and topographical map there is no need to 'update' those book as sad as it might be. As you saw, I proposed to merge the two articles since they are both of the very same system before and after 1948. The discussion of the name can be done over what will the final article be named. 95.86.117.174 (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Setting aside commendable efforts to wipe Palestine off the map whenever the opportunity presents itself, I'm wondering if some of the confusion over the timing of the (+1000000) change in the false northing stems from the Palestine Belt Grid. When was that introduced, 1940s maybe ? What was its false northing, 1126867.909 perhaps ? If so, it's parameters would match ICS which might be the source of the confusion (although it uses a transverse Mercator projection). Sean.hoyland - talk 18:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we don't have anything on the Palestine Belt Grid but we should have. I feel frustrated by the lack of a definitive source that covers all these grids. What I see is a lot of inconsistent usages of both numbers and names. I also don't have the full story of the extra 1000 that is added in the north of the country on Amudanan and in a commercial GIS that I looked at. I know it wasn't always added in sources. Zero^talk 20:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, certainly in real world of Esri (et al) they are treated as distinct projections, as one might expect, given that they are different projections. Seems obvious.

28191 Palestine_1923_Palestine_Grid

PROJCS["Palestine_1923_Palestine_Grid",GEOGCS["GCS_Palestine_1923",DATUM["D_Palestine_1923",SPHEROID["Clarke_1880_Benoit",6378300.79,293.466234571]],PRIMEM["Greenwich",0.0],UNIT["Degree",0.0174532925199433]],PROJECTION["Cassini"],PARAMETER["False_Easting",170251.555],PARAMETER["False_Northing",126867.909],PARAMETER["Central_Meridian",35.21208055555556],PARAMETER["Scale_Factor",1.0],PARAMETER["Latitude_Of_Origin",31.73409694444445],UNIT["Meter",1.0]]

28192 Palestine_1923_Palestine_Belt

PROJCS["Palestine_1923_Palestine_Belt",GEOGCS["GCS_Palestine_1923",DATUM["D_Palestine_1923",SPHEROID["Clarke_1880_Benoit",6378300.79,293.466234571]],PRIMEM["Greenwich",0.0],UNIT["Degree",0.0174532925199433]],PROJECTION["Transverse_Mercator"],PARAMETER["False_Easting",170251.555],PARAMETER["False_Northing",1126867.909],PARAMETER["Central_Meridian",35.21208055555556],PARAMETER["Scale_Factor",1.0],PARAMETER["Latitude_Of_Origin",31.73409694444445],UNIT["Meter",1.0]]

28193 Palestine_1923_Israel_CS_Grid

PROJCS["Palestine_1923_Israel_CS_Grid",GEOGCS["GCS_Palestine_1923",DATUM["D_Palestine_1923",SPHEROID["Clarke_1880_Benoit",6378300.79,293.466234571]],PRIMEM["Greenwich",0.0],UNIT["Degree",0.0174532925199433]],PROJECTION["Cassini"],PARAMETER["False_Easting",170251.555],PARAMETER["False_Northing",1126867.909],PARAMETER["Central_Meridian",35.21208055555556],PARAMETER["Scale_Factor",1.0],PARAMETER["Latitude_Of_Origin",31.73409694444445],UNIT["Meter",1.0]]

Sean.hoyland - talk 04:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This completely supports the fact those systems are the same! Did you look at the values??? The only difference I found is the False Northing which is same for ICS and Pal-belt. Did you noticed the fact they are all dated to 1923?

The fact a software company will give it a few values can be political. Did you ever look at borders of countries on Google maps?

This conversation is so pathetic. It is clear those are the same with possibly a slight update (according to Gavish by the brits). Both numbers are being used on Wikipedia by Huldra as if they were identical. It is beyond me how can you insist on anything else. 95.86.114.125 (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but can't be bothered to respond to this in detail. It's too foolish. I'll give you some clues. If projections use different parameters they are different projections. If you understood what projections are and what they do you would understand why that is the case. In some cases they may produce very similar output in terms of xys (like Palestine_1923_Palestine_Belt vs Palestine_1923_Israel_CS_Grid despite using different methods) and in other cases they produce very different output (like Palestine_1923_Palestine_Grid vs Palestine_1923_Israel_CS_Grid where there is a 1000000 difference in the false northing). Palestine 1923 is the geodetic datum. The Palestine 1923 coordinate reference system uses that datum. These 3 projections that produce xys use that datum and CRS. All of that information is needed in order to transform a point on a not quite spherical object to a flat thing with nice xys in metres without too much distortion. Regarding "The fact a software company will give it a few values can be political"...or not, in this case not. Just understand this, different parameters = different projections. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few hours before this article was created 12:48, 17 January 2015‎ Zero wrote on Israeli_Cassini_Soldner#PAL-Cassini "I suspect this is the modern name for the system called the "Palestine Grid" from its inception in the 1920s until the end of the mandate". Then he go and start a new article which even by reading the articles is clearly the same as the existing one. :If you want to talk about political efforts, you should address it to Zero. Since then it has been linked on over 500 pages! 95.86.117.174 (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The time is coming to report you for trolling. Anybody can read that comment and see that it is nothing to do with ICS but about the name "PAL-Cassini" which is almost unknown except on Wikipedia mirrors. Zero^talk 20:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling? It is on the page of ICS and we are having dicussion on the matter! 95.86.117.174 (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain PAL per Zero0000's reasoning and evidence. But also: Update infobox code to also allow for ICS, and merge them into a single PAL/ICS line when the values are the same. I can provide sample wikitemplate code for doing that kind of test. I haven't worked it out in Lua yet, so someone else would have to do that, for any infoboxes that have been converted to Lua modules. I'd like to see that code, since I could reuse it. I suck at Lua so far, and would trust someone else to code that more efficiently. If someone wants with wikitemplate code, you'll have to ping me for it. In general: Any time there are two or more systems (at least three in this case: Palesting, ICS, and ITM), with significant real world usage, it's probably best to allow for them all. This is useful for readers (you can't predict which system they're familiar with), and it prevents "activism" for or against any one system. The way we handle metric and US/Imperial units is a general guide to how to handle all such conflicts between measurement systems. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proof that ICS and PAL are not the same[edit]

The official definition of ICS is given here. I'll quote the important lines:

2. Main datum point values
   Lat of origin (D-M-S)= 31 44  2.748999999990644
   Lon of origin (D-M-S)= 35 12 43.490000000012970
3. Main grid point values
   False Easting (m):   170251.554999999900000
   False Northing(m): 1126867.909000000000000

The origin is near Mar Elias Monastery, SE of Jerusalem, which was also the origin for the Palestine grid. Item 3 states that the coordinates of this point in ICS are 170/1126 (to kilometer precision). However this point in the Palestine Grid was not 170/1126, it was 170/126 as can be checked on any of the countless maps produced by the Survey of Palestine (for example, map 17-12 here) and also confirmed by Gavish's book. You can also read here that the false northing for the Palestine grid was 126,867.909, which is 1000km less. These two grids are very closely related, but the coordinates for the two systems are not the same. Zero^talk 21:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I wrote before, Huldra herself writes that authors use both systems. And the reason of course - they are the same. I suspect the 1000 wasn't printed b/c it is obvious and I assume the same thing was done on ICS maps. Can you provide an ICS map where the extra 1 is added? I'm looking myself as well.

Gavish says the 1000 was added EVERYWHERE so south won't be negative.

The ASPRS paper you quote refers to the system before 1948 and after as the same one, supporting my point.

Even if the change you insist happened in 1948 (which you don't have any proof of; on the contrary), it requires a line in ICS article and not an another almost identical article. 95.86.117.174 (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gavish's words are ambiguous, but he meant what I wrote as you can see in his diagram on p76. I don't know exactly when the present official definition of ICS came into being, and I saw a hint that it was during the 1950s. It doesn't matter since the issue is that the coordinates widely given for the Palestine grid differ from the official ICS definition except in the deep south and so should not be presented as ICS coordinates. Zero^talk 03:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gavish's words are very clear but even more important, Huldra who uses it extensively say it appears in different name and she used them all as PAL grid. This an issue for encyclopedia which you are willing to overlook for some reason.

Even if (big if) this change was done at some point it will be a slight update and not command a new article. 95.86.114.125 (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

p.76 on Gavish Figure 4.8 System of reference of the Palestine grid (source: After N.Kadmon, The Israel Grid and the Universal Transverse Mercator Grid, SoI, 1975).

Gavish, the only academic source introduced to this conversation bring the Israeli grid map to show the Palestine grid SoR b/c... They are the same! The figure also shows the jump from 900 to 000 on the Israel grid. I agree the name should be changed from ICS to either 'old Israel grid' or 'Palestine grid' or some combination but the arguement those system are different is redicules.

Not sure why serious editors stick to their guns on this matter which is very clear. the change in 1994 from OIG to ITM goes far beyond adding or reducing some numbers which is why it is a new article but this here is compelete nonsense. 95.86.117.174 (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You write: "the change in 1994 from OIG to ITM goes far beyond adding or reducing some numbers which is why it is a new article". Could you please explain which changes were made...beside adding/reducing some number? This is what I don´t understand. Huldra (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am by no mean an expert on the matter. You can see here it took years so make the switch. This isn't simply adding 500 or 50 to the old numbers. Y can ou translate to english the Hebrew article, you can see there made a few changes and remeasured a lot of it. It is based on this brochure attached at the bottom of the page. You can also see the change adds a delta (Δ) because they don't directly fall on one another. I hope this will help clearing this up.

You can also read here how Israel continued from where the brits left. 95.86.117.174 (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re:"the arguement those system are different is redicules" and "Not sure why serious editors stick to their guns on this matter which is very clear." It is very clear, but you cannot see. You are welcome to look at the EPSG geodetic parameter database maintained by the Geomatics Committee of the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers. Just search for Palestine (or see this EPSG dataset report). In the Exploration & Production sector, geomatics is critically important. Coordinates must be right or bad things can happen. "Palestine 1923 / Palestine Grid", "Palestine 1923 / Palestine Belt" and "Palestine 1923 / Israeli CS Grid" are, by definition, different transformations because they use different parameters. Things that are different are not the same, and this is especially so when it comes to geomatics. I suggest you move on to more productive matters. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean, the only difference between the two are the 1000 value Gavish refers to. Measuring a grid is a result of probably millions of men hours. What you show here is a software that can give output of the same grid before and after a minor change. You can read here how Israel took over the british operation with no mention of 'changing' the system. here it says specifically the ITM/NIG replaces the grid established by the brits over 60 years ago.

Your 'proof' is a software that can spit out numbers on a scale before and after a minor update. I'm sure if you dig in you find it can do some grid with north instead of south or whatever. This is NOT a proof but WP:OR. Unfortunatly, a wrong one. Please try to find a source that supports your claim directly like I have presented and then we can keep this conversation going. 95.86.114.125 (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dug a bit more into that website. Please check Code: EPSG::18201, Name: Palestine Grid. (Remarks: Replaced by AMS by Palestine Belt (proj 18202) which adds 1 million to FN and changes method to TM. In Israel replaced by Israeli CS (proj 18203) which adds 1 million to FN but does not change method.) 95.86.114.125 (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You simply do not understand what this is about at all. I have already provided proof and explained why it is proof from one of the most reliable sources that exists. The problem is that you don't have any conceptual notion of projections and the parameters that uniquely define them, parameters that are required to generate the kind of coordinate systems we are discussing here. You simply cannot understand the value and meaning of what is presented to you because, ironically, you don't have frame of reference. I appreciate that it's unrealistic to expect everyone to understand or care about geomatics, but many people, like me for example, have no choice but to understand it whether they like it or not (often not), and have had to spend considerable time contributing to those millions of man hours surveying whether it be offshore, onshore, surface or subsurface, because if they don't have that knowledge they can't really understand and appreciate what surveyors are talking about and therefore cannot be relied upon to do anything that critically depends on positioning. It's important to understand your limits in all things whether it be positioning or editing Wikipedia when missing knowledge can increase the risk of errors. I'm sorry but it's excruciating reading your comments about these things and I'm not going to read anymore of them, I shall read my Paul Auster book instead. Life is too short. This is my last comment here. I'll leave to others to ensure that good sense prevails. But I shall answer your question. but does not change method is correct. Both the "Palestine 1923 / Palestine Grid" and "Palestine 1923 / Israeli CS Grid" projections use the Cassini-Soldner method which you can read about here. Whereas their replacements, the "Palestine 1923 / Palestine Belt" system and the "Israel 1993 / Israeli TM Grid" projections use the (better) transverse Mercator method, which you can read about here. That is it. I'm out. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give an WP:OR that supports that claim. Zero brought Gavish who says a clarical change (which is described in both articles) has been made to the grid when Israel didn't even exit. If you can provide anyone who says differently, then we can continue this conversation. 95.86.117.174 (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2015 (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.

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose to WP:MERGE this article into Israeli Cassini Soldner.

These two articles are about the same system with both older and newer name. The 1000 was added into the system before it's name was changed (according to the articles themselves. I couldn't get the source).

Please discuss on destination page talk. 95.86.117.174 (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: It's already been demonstrated above that the idea that these two systems are the same thing is easily disproven. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a merge, if editors who actually know what they're talking about are convinced that the two grid systems are so similar that they can and should be addressed in the same article, but no one with that knowledge has proposed that, and much of the above discussion is devoted to proving that the actual numbers produced by the systems are different. I.e., they are not equivalent at all, even if they are related and comparable. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]