Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas/Archive 2

message: If anybody in interested, I've nominated Bryce Canyon National Park for FA status. Please add feedback if you have time. --mav 03:20, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article

message: Park categories need to be organized. Right now we have Category:National Parks which under subcategory National parks by country has sub-subcategories for National Park, Protected areas and conservation areas, not just National Parks. Category:Parks has subcategories for U.S. state parks (only state parks) and for California parks, Illinois parks, etc. (all? parks in state) and other random subcategories. I think that the National Parks category should be limited to designated national parks and another set of categories by used for grouping other types of park - either protected areas or conservation areas (but not both). In Category:Parks, I think we should set up subcategories for Parks by country, then sub-subcategories for Parks by smaller governmental units. Or maybe we just need one set under protected area? Rmhermen 17:46, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
See WP:CFD for naming convention question. -- Beland 05:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Park categories

message: I would like to propose a standardized format for PA entries. Obviously, some sites wouldn't follow the exact format (i.e. cultural sites may not need the geology and biologoy sections) but this should provide some standardization and I believe the following outline covers all the relevant topcis for a PA site.
Please give me feedback on this proposal:
 PA Name
  * Location - a general description of the location in relation to other natural and cultural features
  * Significance - a description of the reason the site was chosed for PA status
  * History - a brief history of the site both before and after PA status
  * Geography
    * Ecosystems - a general description of the ecosystem(s) found within the site
    * Climate - a general description of the weather at the site
  * Geology - a description of the geologic factors of the site, esp. if the site focuses on those features
  * Biology
     * Flora - plant life
     * Fauna - animal life
  * Recreation
     * Facilities
       * Lodging/Camping
       * Comfort facilities - restrooms, food, general stores, etc.
       * Interpretive facilities - ranger stations, museums, road signage, tourist shops, etc.
     * Activities
       * Hiking
       * Climbing
       * Water sports
       * Tours
       * Ranger led activities - walks, talks, slide shows, movies, etc.
As a sample, I have modified the Muir Woods National Monument entry.
Epolk
:Our current standard for Level 4 PA articles is 
"A description. This should contain the PA's location ([state/province/...] (where applicable), [country name], [distance and direction from (a) major or well known city/cities]) and its main features/points of interest. If available, one or more photos can be included;"
Which does not give much guidance. It describes the infobox in more detail following. I would say that it is important to establish the location at the very beginning of the article, generally in the first sentence. Otherwise, it looks pretty good. Rmhermen 14:27, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
::I revised the above proposal to put location at the top of the entry.
::Epolk 16:16, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardization of PA entries 

message: I find the formatting section confusing. I'm not sure why it's even there, but I may be just plain ignorant too. I would like to see a lot more readily available access to useful links to help editors create and expand articles, than the complicated wording or dicussion in the formatting section. Useful links such as to Topozone, Wilderness.net, National park Service home page, U.S. Forest Service homepage, New Zealand, British, Australian etc. parks links are just a few.--MONGO 01:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Formatting Section 

message: While redoing every single infobox of all U.S. National Parks, I noticed that the IUCN rating for several parks is incorrect due to  a lack of updating...I hope I got all the National Parks IUCN protection status correct, but a few may be qualified as both a Park and a Wilderness and I may have missed them. Don't hesitate to update but beware that the IUCN has at least 4 parks listed as National Monuments and a few others just as parks and not also as predominately wilderness areas.--MONGO 01:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUCN status 

message: A couple of us have been bouncing around ideas on modifications to the U.S. version of the  Protected Areas Infobox (see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected Areas/General).  However, we don't want to start changing things without consensus.  So I am proposing a three-step process:
# Below, please vote on whether or not to you think we should rethink the infobox.
# If there is a consensus to change it, or at least discuss it, we would have a period for users to suggest proposals, and post them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected Areas/U.S. Infobox Proposals (2005).
# Have a period for voting on individual proposals.
If taken to step 3, then the revised infobox would be finalized. — Eoghanacht talk 20:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Below, please indicate either Keep (you like the infobox as-is), Change (you think something could be better), Discuss (you are not sure, and want to hear more), or Abstain.  After the vote, add a comment and sign it with four tildes "~~~~".
* Change.  Move to a wiki-template.  Otherwise I am interested in discussing ideas. — Eoghanacht talk 20:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: I admit it seems like a no-brainer to move to an actual template, but I wanted to check that no one could think of a good reason not too.  Also, it's a good idea to make sure that everyone is satisfied with the content of the infobox before moving to a template — so there is no duplication of effort updating existing pages multiple times. — Eoghanacht talk 14:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the information in the infoboxes is fine, but not sure a box displaying a link to the Federal website is necessary...but I'm not concrete on that either way.--MONGO 19:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The template which I developed I only put to use with one site (El Morro?) since I think I had a problem with some text (and I got side tracked with summer).  It does make some fields optional, and it does color the title as decided by this project.  It was not in Wiki markup since I find that incredibly confusing as compared to the HTML markup in which I authored it.  My page User:Mrendo/Template List has a list of all the subtemplates that I created while doing this project.  Note, the links are to my "local" development copies.  I copied each of the templates to the Wiki template namespace and put in a description for each.  Please use my user page for reference, but please modify templates in the right namespace. Mrendo 14:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The templates are still needed as there are a thousand articles that could still use them literally...I would like to ensure there is some spacing between the templates and the article text so there doesn't appear to be any run on. I think, but am not sure, that the seconds to coordinates can be accomplished by widening the infobox from 280 to 300 but would rather not see the infobox take up much more area then it already does.--MONGO 00:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: I created a new map for US locations, based on the current map style guidelines (such as they are) put forth by the WikiProject Maps group. This has the advantage of being cleanly scalable because it's a vector graphics file (again, the recommended direction for Wikipedia maps). Creating locators from the blank version requires a graphics editor that can work with SVG files, but you can always ask someone to make a map for you, and I'll be glad to help too.
—Papayoung ☯ 22:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks nice...lots of articles to update...may wish to usertalk a few folks that have been working on creating/updating the template for implementation as that is where the map would fit in.--MONGO 05:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I've actually come up with a simpler way of doing it that doesn't require making any new maps. This could be used independently of whether or not it's included in the Protected Area template. —Papayoung ☯ 17:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Locator Image for Infoboxes 

message: In addition to the locator maps, it might be a good idea to coordinate more with Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates in providing additional mapping information.  Gene Nygaard 15:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Location mapping

message: Although I think the new protected area infobox template is very good, I personally intend to employ it sparingly over the next couple weeks -- to allow time to find any unforeseen bugs and "second thoughts."  I may add it to a new article, and a couple existing articles.  Does anyone else think this is a good idea, rather having interested users revise many existing articles sooner, rather than later?
Also, inspired by Talk:Father Marquette National Memorial, I have created a message box template (above) to add to the top of protected area articles' talk pages.  Just add: 
Any comments? — Eoghanacht talk 15:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New infobox template, proposed messagebox template 

message: Hottentot has started a discussion of further changes to the Infobox which is being exactly duplicated here, so I've deleted this copy; please join in at Template_talk:Infobox_protected_area. Thanks, —Papayoung ☯ 18:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI: Diceman also has some ideas of altering teh infobox template, namely to add a website field, and change how the lat/long is entered.  See: Template_talk:Infobox_protected_area#Additional_fields — Eoghanacht talk 19:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to change [[Template:Infobox protected area]] 

message: Anyone care to clean up a few of the links. I think we also need to think ahead so future edditors who stumble outo this project will be able to link without confusion to the infobox templates and other highly pertinent areas...just a few thoughts.--MONGO 02:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Becides being totaly useless, being that people that don't follow the disclamers in the first place, the this is where the infobox disclamer on all of the pages needs to go. It creates a nice void space at the top of every article in which it is placed, which is no good. So if it pops up on my watch list i am gonna remove it. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 06:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with him, just disagree with his tone, which has been well documented by others. It may be a bug as this shouldn't be happening...I haven't left them in all the articles I updated, just some of them and indeed, it does create a space at the top...I'm not that worried about it, but if you report it as a bug send me a link if you could...thanks!--MONGO 16:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be a bug, or the disclaimer is not formatted right.--MONGO 09:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclamer 

message: My first map is for Acadia National Park, showing the location of the park in a regional and local context.
::Image:Acadianpmap.jpg
I'm considering the possibility of adding shaded relief, and plan to make other improvements to this (e.g. spell out "Acadia National Park" rather "Acadia NP", and upload SVG version of the map).  If you have any suggestions, I welcome them.  
I'll also try making a second map for a western, mountainous park in the U.S. or Canada and see what standard I can come up with that works for different types of parks/protected areas. ---Aude 04:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  When you are happy with a final style, maybe you should write to the National Park Service and/or U.S. Forest Service volunteering your maps for their web pages. — Eoghanacht talk 13:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Was this map created using a free resource? Even if it was it is courteous to mention the source in the image page. Rmhermen 20:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by "source in the image page"?  The source is "I, the creator of this work,", as the image page says.  Now, if you're asking me what software did I use?  The map is created using GIS software, Adobe Illustrator, and Adobe Photoshop.  Unfortunately, the software isn't free.  Where did the source data come from? The source GIS data is available from a variety of sources, mainly the U.S. Census Bureau, USGS, National Park Service (all free, public domain sources). ---Aude 21:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, in other words, you're prepared to make locator maps such as the one demostrated for over 1,000 protected areas...and that is for just the U.S.? Since many of us don't have that software, why are we just unilaterally replacing the US locator map with that one? Why can't we keep the locator map as is and have your excellent map for finer detail further down? I think the map you did is excellent, but it may be vague for international sources and believe it or not, a lot of folks simply have no idea (even U.S. citizens) where Maine is.--MONGO 07:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional/local-scale park maps 

message: I have proposed a merger of Brindabella National Park (south eastern New South Wales, Australia) into the article on the Brindabella Ranges.  In the discussion on the merger it was suggested that the "wikiproject on protected areas of the world... would probably not be happy with the national park being made a sub-section."  I get no sense of a policy on this from the project page.  Any views?  The merger is proposed as the park article is a stub and is unlikely to develop separately to the article on the ranges.  If of course the section does develop, it can be split out again back to its separate article.  I would propose to keep the templated information in that form within the subsection.--A  Y  Arktos 05:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One person in particular that works on Australian parks that may be able to help you with that is Diceman--MONGO 07:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: A National Park is a fairly specific area and is treated differently from the surrounding terrain (whether that's in theory or practice I'm not sure). I think the information on the Brindabella Ranges specific to the national park should be included on the national park page, and any relevant information about the park mentioned on the ranges page. I can see why you might want to combine the articles, but in the case of protected areas it wouldn't be right to eliminate an article entirely, consider it a kind of database. - Diceman 15:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "Every park, a page." is my policy. Rmhermen 04:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brindabella in Australia - merger of park into article about area?