![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
What do you think of Established: rather than Date Established:? Right now it is the longest item on the left side. In a few tests (see Gloria Dei (Old Swedes') Church National Historic Site) because it is long (and depending on the input to the right) it often breaks into two lines (at least on my interface), yet the date is probably always a single line, making the table slightly taller. Elimiating "Date" would keep it a single line in all instances. — Eoghanacht talk 17:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
To help with getting the dot in the right place, an enlarged map with a grid of pixel "coordinates" (eg. x:0-187, y:0-288) would be a good reference. - Diceman 11:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering what others think about my idea to change Template:Infobox protected area to looking something like this:
{{Infobox_protected_area2 | name = Crater Lake National Park | iucn_category = II | image = US_Locator_Blank.svg | caption = | locator_x = 18 | locator_y = 40 | location = [[Oregon]], [[United States|USA]] | nearest_city = [[Eugene, Oregon]] | lat_degrees = 42 | lat_minutes = 56 | lat_seconds = 0 | lat_direction = N | long_degrees = 122 | long_minutes = 07 | long_seconds = 0 | long_direction = W | area = 183,224 acres <br /> (741.48 km²) | established = [[May 22]], [[1902]] | visitation_num = 451,322 | visitation_year = 2003 | governing_body = [[National Park Service]] }}
I think this sort of makes a compromise between the templates that are used on all the national parks pages (such as Yosemite) and I think it looks better than what we have right now:
Crater Lake National Park | |
---|---|
IUCN category II (
national park) | |
![]() | |
Location | Oregon, USA |
Nearest city | Eugene, Oregon |
Area | 183,224 acres (741.48 km²) |
Established | May 22, 1902 |
Visitors | 451,322 (in 2003) |
Governing body | National Park Service |
Just wondering what others think. -- Hottentot
FYI, I changed the sample boxes to eliminate the hectare. — Eoghanacht talk 15:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
On some of my articles, when the lat/long gets too long, it wraps to another line (at least as I see it on my IE browser). What bothers me is that this happens even when there seems to be plenty of white space between the right and left sides of the infobox. For example:
Scotts Bluff National Monument, on my screen, puts the "W" on a new line, even though there is a gap of about 25% of the infobox width to spare. I wonder if this has anything to do with the little "arrow pointing out of a box" symbol that the system uses to denote an external link? I attempted to fix the problem by adding a nonbreaking space (
) immediately after the coor template, but no dice. Does anyone else see this problem? And, if so, can anyone think of a solution? —
Eoghanacht
talk
14:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Could I put in a request for a plain old "coordinates" field that can make use of eg. {{coord|35|00|47|S|138|39|21|E|}} as the majority of the Australian pages have this template on them, and for an "official site" field. - Diceman 15:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Could I put in a request for a "Contact" field that could contain phone numbers, email address, postal address etc, for the governing body? Tongariro National Park has got this (I think useful) information in an info box, and it would be good if the Tongariro National Park article could use this template without discarding information. If there are no objections before the new year I'll do it myself. Alastairgbrown 02:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Currently, the template only allows location information to be entered for one set of geographic coordinates/descriptions. While this is sufficient for most protected areas, there are some areas where it's necessary to enter in two (or more) sets of coordinates/descriptions. For example, the Nebraska National Forest is comprised of two districts that are over 150 miles apart from each other. It'd be nice to be able to create two dots, two sets of coordinates, and list the closest city for each. – Swid 21:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
For the purposes of comparison, I've created an off-wiki database ( [1]) that contains template data for all en:wikipedia articles that describe a IUCN Protected Area. The reasons for doing this are:
What I would like to know from interested wikipedians is:
Alastairgbrown 09:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to say, though this is a helpful template generally, it doesn't make so much sense for these giant national maps to illustrate a monument that happens to be in the center of a major city.-- Pharos 03:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Would this template be useful for a state park. I had some guy whining about the template I made for the Indiana State Parks displacing some beloved pic of his. (For the template I made for the Indiana State Parks, see Ouabache State Park. The top right template, not the one on the bottom.)-- Bedford 04:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I really want to love this template... It's attractive, it's informative... but it looks absolutely foolish on articles which are illustrated. I've seen this problem 'solved' in a number of ways, all of which are weak. For examples see Lincoln Memorial and Statue of Liberty... or the default impact on Wolf_Trap_National_Park_for_the_Performing_Arts.
The map is informative. But it's not so informative that it should offset a picture provided on an article. Even with the rearrangement we see on my first two examples it still causes the into of the article to become picture heavy and cluttered overall. I'm not sure how best to solve this. .. I am getting tempted to start moving the box to the bottom of the article, to the right of the external links section on articles which are illustrated and above stub length, but I'm sure that would offend all the folks here who have worked so hard on it.
Thoughts? -- Gmaxwell 23:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
There needs to be a way to pass the map scale to the coor function. Not all parks are the size of Algonquin. The parameter needs to be optional and if not specified the current 1:300,000 should be used to keep from altering present usage. -- J Clear 00:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
coords= {{coord|lat|long|etc.}}
where etc. includes the scale. —
EncMstr (
talk)
21:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)I know this isn't quite the kind of message one usually posts on a talk page but I asked this at the Help Desk almost a week ago and never received any answers. I am experiencing a bit of a problem with the locator maps in the Protected area infobox. Whenever I view a page that contains the infobox in Mozilla Firefox (v 2.0 and my primary browser), the locator map does not appear, instead there is just a thick gray line. I know the maps are still there, the red locator dot still appears (over the text of the infobox) and I can view the maps just fine when I access the page using Internet Explorer. I've never had this problem before, it surfaced about ten days ago. Does anyone have any insights on what might be the cause of this issue? Thanks, -- Nebular110 17:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Protected areas can be close to towns, villages OR cities. I propose that the word "city" should be changed to "community". Alan Liefting 04:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
For some reason I can't see the locator dot on the map (although when I mouse over the location it does point to Image:Locator_Dot.svg). I have tried Firefox and IE, and both have this problem. -- Schzmo 02:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi folks, I think that this template would be vastly improved by including a photo at the top, above the map. This would mean adding optional fields for "photo" and "photo_caption". These would be located between the current "iucn_category" and "image" fields, so that the photo would appear above the map.
The reason is simple: the map is very bland, not pretty at all, and that is the very first thing that any reader's eye is drawn to. It would be so much nicer if, e.g., the Yosemite or Mount Rainier National Park articles began with a scenic photo instead of that map. Many editors have resorted to cramming a scenic photo into the upper left corner of various national park articles to overcome the current template's limitations, but that is not a good solution because it fouls up the lead paragraph, and may violate WP:MOS too.
I think this change will be a major improvement, and it would certainly cause no harm since the optional photo / photo_caption fields would not be displayed if absent. What do others think about this idea? -- Seattle Skier (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the only problem from having a loaded infobox will be the need to create space between the area where the infobox and introduction is and the first section after that if the introduction wording is too short, otherwise we'll run into cramping since a lot of articles have a picture in the very first section after the intro/infobox section..see Yellowstone National Park, where an extra picture will work out fine.-- MONGO 05:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I think adding the parameter to all parks, etc. that have been designated World Heritage Sites is a decent idea...as far as I am concerned, ths is the best way to eliminate the addition of the template that is currently on a number of articles that details just this issue. So I updated the template and the useage section so it should be easy to copy and paste this info into the appropriate articles. The pararmeter to copy and paste is below..add it right after Governing body or it won't work right. Maybe further refinements are possible as well.
|world_heritage_site =
Thanks.-- MONGO 04:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I already added the new parameter manually to the Yosemite National Park article.-- MONGO 04:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to add two more optional fields, land area and sea area? This is known data at least for a number of Norwegian national parks, see for example Forlandet National Park (which I would like to change into using this template). -- Berland 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Locator maps have the capability to place the dot automatically based on longitude/latitude. If somebody has gone to all the trouble to enter the coordinates in the format, it would be nice if it carried through rather than having to also manually enter the X and Y. That all said, i like standardizing the protected area. Americasroof ( talk) 02:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
What do you think of Established: rather than Date Established:? Right now it is the longest item on the left side. In a few tests (see Gloria Dei (Old Swedes') Church National Historic Site) because it is long (and depending on the input to the right) it often breaks into two lines (at least on my interface), yet the date is probably always a single line, making the table slightly taller. Elimiating "Date" would keep it a single line in all instances. — Eoghanacht talk 17:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
To help with getting the dot in the right place, an enlarged map with a grid of pixel "coordinates" (eg. x:0-187, y:0-288) would be a good reference. - Diceman 11:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering what others think about my idea to change Template:Infobox protected area to looking something like this:
{{Infobox_protected_area2 | name = Crater Lake National Park | iucn_category = II | image = US_Locator_Blank.svg | caption = | locator_x = 18 | locator_y = 40 | location = [[Oregon]], [[United States|USA]] | nearest_city = [[Eugene, Oregon]] | lat_degrees = 42 | lat_minutes = 56 | lat_seconds = 0 | lat_direction = N | long_degrees = 122 | long_minutes = 07 | long_seconds = 0 | long_direction = W | area = 183,224 acres <br /> (741.48 km²) | established = [[May 22]], [[1902]] | visitation_num = 451,322 | visitation_year = 2003 | governing_body = [[National Park Service]] }}
I think this sort of makes a compromise between the templates that are used on all the national parks pages (such as Yosemite) and I think it looks better than what we have right now:
Crater Lake National Park | |
---|---|
IUCN category II (
national park) | |
![]() | |
Location | Oregon, USA |
Nearest city | Eugene, Oregon |
Area | 183,224 acres (741.48 km²) |
Established | May 22, 1902 |
Visitors | 451,322 (in 2003) |
Governing body | National Park Service |
Just wondering what others think. -- Hottentot
FYI, I changed the sample boxes to eliminate the hectare. — Eoghanacht talk 15:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
On some of my articles, when the lat/long gets too long, it wraps to another line (at least as I see it on my IE browser). What bothers me is that this happens even when there seems to be plenty of white space between the right and left sides of the infobox. For example:
Scotts Bluff National Monument, on my screen, puts the "W" on a new line, even though there is a gap of about 25% of the infobox width to spare. I wonder if this has anything to do with the little "arrow pointing out of a box" symbol that the system uses to denote an external link? I attempted to fix the problem by adding a nonbreaking space (
) immediately after the coor template, but no dice. Does anyone else see this problem? And, if so, can anyone think of a solution? —
Eoghanacht
talk
14:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Could I put in a request for a plain old "coordinates" field that can make use of eg. {{coord|35|00|47|S|138|39|21|E|}} as the majority of the Australian pages have this template on them, and for an "official site" field. - Diceman 15:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Could I put in a request for a "Contact" field that could contain phone numbers, email address, postal address etc, for the governing body? Tongariro National Park has got this (I think useful) information in an info box, and it would be good if the Tongariro National Park article could use this template without discarding information. If there are no objections before the new year I'll do it myself. Alastairgbrown 02:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Currently, the template only allows location information to be entered for one set of geographic coordinates/descriptions. While this is sufficient for most protected areas, there are some areas where it's necessary to enter in two (or more) sets of coordinates/descriptions. For example, the Nebraska National Forest is comprised of two districts that are over 150 miles apart from each other. It'd be nice to be able to create two dots, two sets of coordinates, and list the closest city for each. – Swid 21:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
For the purposes of comparison, I've created an off-wiki database ( [1]) that contains template data for all en:wikipedia articles that describe a IUCN Protected Area. The reasons for doing this are:
What I would like to know from interested wikipedians is:
Alastairgbrown 09:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to say, though this is a helpful template generally, it doesn't make so much sense for these giant national maps to illustrate a monument that happens to be in the center of a major city.-- Pharos 03:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Would this template be useful for a state park. I had some guy whining about the template I made for the Indiana State Parks displacing some beloved pic of his. (For the template I made for the Indiana State Parks, see Ouabache State Park. The top right template, not the one on the bottom.)-- Bedford 04:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I really want to love this template... It's attractive, it's informative... but it looks absolutely foolish on articles which are illustrated. I've seen this problem 'solved' in a number of ways, all of which are weak. For examples see Lincoln Memorial and Statue of Liberty... or the default impact on Wolf_Trap_National_Park_for_the_Performing_Arts.
The map is informative. But it's not so informative that it should offset a picture provided on an article. Even with the rearrangement we see on my first two examples it still causes the into of the article to become picture heavy and cluttered overall. I'm not sure how best to solve this. .. I am getting tempted to start moving the box to the bottom of the article, to the right of the external links section on articles which are illustrated and above stub length, but I'm sure that would offend all the folks here who have worked so hard on it.
Thoughts? -- Gmaxwell 23:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
There needs to be a way to pass the map scale to the coor function. Not all parks are the size of Algonquin. The parameter needs to be optional and if not specified the current 1:300,000 should be used to keep from altering present usage. -- J Clear 00:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
coords= {{coord|lat|long|etc.}}
where etc. includes the scale. —
EncMstr (
talk)
21:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)I know this isn't quite the kind of message one usually posts on a talk page but I asked this at the Help Desk almost a week ago and never received any answers. I am experiencing a bit of a problem with the locator maps in the Protected area infobox. Whenever I view a page that contains the infobox in Mozilla Firefox (v 2.0 and my primary browser), the locator map does not appear, instead there is just a thick gray line. I know the maps are still there, the red locator dot still appears (over the text of the infobox) and I can view the maps just fine when I access the page using Internet Explorer. I've never had this problem before, it surfaced about ten days ago. Does anyone have any insights on what might be the cause of this issue? Thanks, -- Nebular110 17:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Protected areas can be close to towns, villages OR cities. I propose that the word "city" should be changed to "community". Alan Liefting 04:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
For some reason I can't see the locator dot on the map (although when I mouse over the location it does point to Image:Locator_Dot.svg). I have tried Firefox and IE, and both have this problem. -- Schzmo 02:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi folks, I think that this template would be vastly improved by including a photo at the top, above the map. This would mean adding optional fields for "photo" and "photo_caption". These would be located between the current "iucn_category" and "image" fields, so that the photo would appear above the map.
The reason is simple: the map is very bland, not pretty at all, and that is the very first thing that any reader's eye is drawn to. It would be so much nicer if, e.g., the Yosemite or Mount Rainier National Park articles began with a scenic photo instead of that map. Many editors have resorted to cramming a scenic photo into the upper left corner of various national park articles to overcome the current template's limitations, but that is not a good solution because it fouls up the lead paragraph, and may violate WP:MOS too.
I think this change will be a major improvement, and it would certainly cause no harm since the optional photo / photo_caption fields would not be displayed if absent. What do others think about this idea? -- Seattle Skier (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the only problem from having a loaded infobox will be the need to create space between the area where the infobox and introduction is and the first section after that if the introduction wording is too short, otherwise we'll run into cramping since a lot of articles have a picture in the very first section after the intro/infobox section..see Yellowstone National Park, where an extra picture will work out fine.-- MONGO 05:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I think adding the parameter to all parks, etc. that have been designated World Heritage Sites is a decent idea...as far as I am concerned, ths is the best way to eliminate the addition of the template that is currently on a number of articles that details just this issue. So I updated the template and the useage section so it should be easy to copy and paste this info into the appropriate articles. The pararmeter to copy and paste is below..add it right after Governing body or it won't work right. Maybe further refinements are possible as well.
|world_heritage_site =
Thanks.-- MONGO 04:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I already added the new parameter manually to the Yosemite National Park article.-- MONGO 04:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to add two more optional fields, land area and sea area? This is known data at least for a number of Norwegian national parks, see for example Forlandet National Park (which I would like to change into using this template). -- Berland 16:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Locator maps have the capability to place the dot automatically based on longitude/latitude. If somebody has gone to all the trouble to enter the coordinates in the format, it would be nice if it carried through rather than having to also manually enter the X and Y. That all said, i like standardizing the protected area. Americasroof ( talk) 02:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)