Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas/Infobox

message: Mount Rushmore       	Mount Rushmore
                     	
Designation          	National Memorial
Location             	Black Hills of South Dakota, United States
Nearest City         	Keystone, South Dakota
Coordinates          	
Area                 	1,278.45 acres (1,238.45 federal)517.37 hectares
Date of Establishment	March 3, 1925
Visitation           	2,037,820 (2004)
Governing Body       	National Park Service
IUCN category        	V (Protected Landscape/Seascape)
Website              	http://www.nps.gov/moru/
After using the U.S. protected area table on a couple of sites, others made some modifications worth looking at:
# Use of a wiki-markup instead of HTML markup to create the table.  It is simpler and easier to read while editing, yet looks the same in an article.
# Insertion of non-displaying BEGIN and END comment tags.
# An option to insert an image of the protected place in the table.
# Row for the area's webite.
This example of Mount Rushmore shows all three of these, just hit "edit" to see the code.
Any comments? — Eoghanacht talk 12:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dislike having both a picture and a map. The map is the most resonable object for the box as articles may be expected to have multiple pictures and the map has no other natural location except near the top of the article which discusses the location of the park. Conversion to Wikimarkup is wlecome. I never did it because I am not great at it. Rmhermen 15:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Modification to standard table

message: I've been working on National Forest articles so does everyone think they should be classified as VI since they harvest lumber and allow hunting and mining and livestock grazing, but still are "protected", or do you think they should not have a protected template at all?--MONGO 16:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Try looking it up on http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/wdbpa/ under the "search for sites" button to the upper left.  Most National Forests should be listed, as they are a decent size.  For small historic sites, I am running into a lack of categorization, though.  A quick look for Chattahoochee N.Forest came up with "VI".  However, I have not been too happy with the Lat/Long listings on that database -- often pinpoints an area of nothing.  I generally like to key in on a useful feature (such as the memorial at Little Bighorn, or the mountain top for Catoctin Mountain Park).  Try typing the full name of the site into http://www.topozone.com/ . — Eoghanacht talk 17:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added one and it fits the VI status. I use topozone all the time, and oftentimes have to also use mapquest, locate the nearest hamlet of small town and then switch back, locate it in topozone and find a coordinate that way. Also, U.S. fish and wildlife sites should use all 
three coordinates due to their size but use the IV color scheme since the focus is almost entirely species protection of animals and their habitat.--MONGO 05:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Forest categories 

message: FYI, I just noticed that about a week ago, there has been an implementation of new infoboxes for Australian sites away frow the example here.  See Organ Pipes National Park.  — Eoghanacht talk 17:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think of them? I thought style-wise the current tables were fairly outdated so I created a version based on the Arcade Infobox template. I wasn't experienced with creating infoboxes so I used tables on each page instead. I know you in the U.S. probably have thousands of pages already with the original table style and wouldn't want to change them (or simply prefer the original) but I would like them to all be changed to something that's a little more visually appealing. see :Category talk:National parks of Australia for discussion. I'm also in the process of creating new state locator maps that are modelled after the U.S.A. locator map (there's one in wikicommons). - Diceman 12:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian infoboxes have been changed 

message: I say use square kilometers for large areas and hectacres for smaller areas...but what is the cutoff point? Additionally, I recommend the use of acres before the metric equivalent in articles about U.S. protected areas, and vice versa everywhere else. And, the use of American English in U.S. articles and British English outside the U.S. Just a few musings, but lets develop a concensus of what metric dimension we need to follow to standardize articles. What is more readily understood in the metric world, hectacres or square kilometers?--MONGO 05:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hectacres or square kilometers 

message: Based on the archived proposals/discussions in October of 2005 I have put the new template on the infobox page.  I plan to add some more usage examples later. — Eoghanacht talk 13:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template based infobox 

message: I had a hard time figuring out which category the national forest articles I wrote were in. I figured it should be easier to figure it out so I updated these articles to have which IUCN category they should be in. 
* National Park
* State Park
* Nature_reserve
* U.S. National Forest
* U.S. Wilderness Area
Did I do it right?
-Ravedave 22:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, just for some National Parks in the U.S., we have been labelling them as wilderness (Ib) if they have a majority of acreage designated as wilderness...see Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve for an example.--MONGO 10:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That's wrong, National Forests should not have Category VI as default, they are unassigned. If they had Category VI, they would be listed in the database. See also GAP Status Codes and IUCN Definitions (GAP is provider of the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PADUS) and works together with the United States Forest Service, so this can be seen as a primary source)...-- Sinuhe20 (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUCN Cateogries 

message: (This is a segway from the above discussion.)
Some articles use the infobox, but do not have any IUCN category identified in the infobox.
* In some cases the protected area may have an IUCN Category, but the editor did not enter it (for whatever reason).
* In some cases the area is listed in the IUCN database does not have an official IUCN Category assigned and the editor left that infobox field blank.
** In other cases the area does not have an official IUCN Category but the editor went ahead and marked one based on similar types of protected areas.
* In some cases the area is not listed in the IUCN database at all.
* In a few cases, the IUCN Category is simply not applicable, such as in an administrative groupings of protected areas (see National Capital Parks-East).
Some questions for group consideration:
# Should there be a new feature in the infobox to state that there is no IUCN Category?  (If so it should logically be put in the place of the IUCN Category row, I presume.)
# How detailed should it be?  i.e. differentiating between areas in the database, but with an unset category, vs. areas not in the database at all.
# Does anyone know how to program a feature such that articles, lacking any input in the IUCN field of the infobox, would be automatically added to a "IUCN Category not assigned" Wikipedia category?
# Does anyone have a big problem with the practice of editors assigning IUCN Categories for unlisted/unset areas, based on similar types of protected areas?  I have been doing this, but adding a not-displaying note to that effect in the article code.
— Eoghanacht talk 19:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IUCN Category not assigned

message: What's up with the locator dot on the US protected area infoboxes? Nationalparks 03:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem to have an odd shape.--MONGO 05:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locator Dot 

message: Could this infobox be modified so that when long & lat data is added, then the coords also go in the upper-right hand corner of the article, where many articles have geodata? --Padraic 17:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm opposed to that since we already have the coordinates in the infobox..it seems redundant.--MONGO 17:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long & lat in the header 

message: Big template. Edward Tufte would not be amused.--Knulclunk 03:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  content squeeze 

message: I have recently checked through hundreds of pages of counties, cities, villages, towns, hamlets, and templates for New York state.
I have found the box (FIPS, ZIP, population, land area, coordinates) to be interesting and useful.
What is the Infobox protected area? This seems to be the large box (table) usually in the upper right corner of all of these pages except the template pages.
Why does the map sometimes show a dot for a town, city, and village; other times show a colored area for a town, city, and village? (these links are to examples of such pages)
Why do many of the maps (when clicked) only show a blank (no dot or colored area) map of the state?
Why do some of the pages have a FIPS code in the box but others do not?
Why do some of the pages have a ZIP code in the box, but others do not? (few have it elsewhere on the page)
Why do some pages have so much more info in the box than most? Why do others have very little info in the box or the box is missing entirely?
How does one put specific places on a map of his own using coordinates for those places, such as are used a lot at wikipedia?
 hello (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox protected area: maps and locations