Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas
Wikiproject userbox/user category
|
This user is a member of WikiProject Protected areas. |
I can't believe I spent time doing this (rather than working on actual articles) but I just created a userbox (current version pictured to the right) for this Wikiproject.
The template is located at Template:User protectedareas and you can add it to your userpage babel box simply by entering "protectedareas". My userpage shows an example.
Adding the template to your userpage also automatically lists you in the Category:Participants in WikiProject Protected areas which I created to supplement (not replace) the list of traditional list of participants.
If everyone else thinks this was a dumb idea of mine, I shall request that they be deleted. — Eoghanacht talk 18:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- It is a lovely userbox. However, with the recent imbroglio over Kelly Martin's deletion of userboxes, I think I'll wait a bit before deciding whether to add it to my page. Still, it is very nice work. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I like it. Walter does touch on a cord as of late...there may be a policy change over the use of userboxes, but I doubt it...I may add it later so please don't delete it.--MONGO 02:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Most of the userbox issues seem to center on two perceived ideas: denoting POV and irrelevency to the production of an encyclopedia. I doubt a userbox relating to a well established wikiproject would run afoul of either claimed abuse of boxes. So I'll bet this one is kosher with even the most restrictive hypothetical userbox policy. — Eoghanacht talk 13:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have to agree. Most of the recent push to remove userboxes was because they multiplied in number so much over the past month...to the point of ridiculous. I'll add it to my userpage.--MONGO 13:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've added the userbox to my page, too. Thank you, Eoghanacht. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Standard format for protected area category names
I have noticed that there are different formats for category names of protected areas (at least relating to the United States). For example:
- Category:National parks of the United States
- Category:National Historic Sites of the United States
- Category:National Memorials in the United States
- Category:U.S. National Recreation Areas
The issues seem to be:
- Putting "U.S." in front (which seems to be non-standard wikicategory format)
- Capitalizing the designation
- Using "in" versus "of"
I propose the following standard format: Category:National foo of Country
My rational being:
- The designation is not a proper name, and should not be capitalized by itself. (Example: "We went to Big Bird National Wildlife Refuge." but "There are four national wildlife refuges in West Dakota.")
- Protected areas are designated and protected by a country, and therefore should be "of" that country. Also, "in" can be problematic for territories (example: Caribbean National Forest is owned/protected by the federal gov't of the U.S., but is in an unincorporated territory (Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) -- someone is going to dispute which "country" category it goes in.)
Any thoughts? — Eoghanacht talk 20:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes there should be a set standard. National Parks...."P" in Parks needs to be capitalized. National Historic Sites of the United States is the only one of the four examples you provide that is correctly worded. "of" instead of "in" always. Last example should be National Recreation Areas of the United States. That's where I stand, anyway.--MONGO 01:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Likewise, "National Parks of Great Britain", "National Parks of South Africa"...etc.--MONGO 01:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Was Category: National Wildlife Refuges in the United States ->Category: National Wildlife Refuges of the United States overlooked? I would support it as well. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
See vote for category renaming here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_16#U.S._protected_areas
New "Open tasks" section
It seemed a good idea to me to have a section about open tasks, with suggested ideas for participants to work on. I got the idea from the {{Opentask}} template.
I added a quick list (certainly not balanced nor exhaustive) to the main page. Please feel free to add/edit. If alot of you think it is of little use, I won't mind seeing it deleted.
One idea is to have it as a separate template. Then it can added not only to the project page, but also as part of a welcome message to new project participants. — Eoghanacht talk 18:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- List so far is a bit U.S.-centric, no? Rmhermen 19:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes! That can be due to any combination of three reasons: 1) I don't get out of the country enough. 2) Other countries' Wikipedians are so on-the-ball they have it all under control. 3) Us Yanks have been doing a bad job so far. — Eoghanacht talk 19:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Recent CfD nominations
FYI, There are a couple current CfDs related to protected areas, the latter nominated by me. — Eoghanacht talk 13:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Infobox map
Image:US Locator Blank.svg is not being displayed. I've tried two computers/operating systems/browsers. The infobox displays a red dot on a white rectangle; the map is missing. See Mount Rushmore. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- Image:US Locator Blank.svg seems to be blank - but doesn't seem to have been edited. The Australian ones work - and the image there shows a map of Australia. Rmhermen 23:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, what the heck is going on...must be a bug? I see no evidence of deletion.--MONGO 10:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- I posted a comment on the Village Pump (technical)[1]...the image servers may be having trouble.--MONGO 10:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Seems to have fixed itself. Rmhermen 15:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Image:US_Locator_Blank.svg){kind=link}
Nearest city
Copied (with edits) from Talk:Zion National Park.
I wonder if the nearest city in the infobox should be changed from Springdale, UT to St. George, UT with the justification that St. George (with scheduled airline service) is more correctly classed as a city. The respective articles make this distinction. Walter Siegmund (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- I also agree that St. George is the closest "city".--MONGO 14:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- I'm proposing for consistency and uniformity that the criterion for nearest city in the infobox be the closest city or town with airline service scheduled at least six days a week. I've copied a discussion (above) to provide an example and context. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to make a rule as specific as requiring an active airport. I usually looked for a city big enough to have supplies - some of these parks are very isolated. Rmhermen 03:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to hear more behind the theory of the "nearest city" field. In a related thread... I have been primarily working on smaller sites, and often they are in sizeable cities -- in the case of the District of Columbia my "___location" and my "nearest city" are coterminous. Mostly editors have been putting (for U.S. places) the state/territory and country under "___location", and a nearby city/town under "nearest city." Perhaps, the ___location field should list the place, state, and country (example Parkville, West Dakota, USA) and the "nearest city" could be left blank for protected areas already in a notable place. (For big protected areas that are adjacent to multiple small towns, perhaps the ___location of the adminstrative headquarters could be listed as the place.) In the case of remote protected areas continue to enter the nearest sizeable city/town (example: Bigcity, West Dakota). Does this make sense to anyone else? — Eoghanacht talk 17:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- You can remove the nearest city line without odd things happening to the table so I think that is a good solution for parks inside cities. Many larger parks are not necessarily in a " place, state, and country" so I don't think that is a good universal solution. Rmhermen 17:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I simply became too formulaic in my approach to these fields in the infobox. I agree there is no universal solution; I plan to be more flexible from now on. For Location, sometimes the state(s) is appropriate ("Texas, USA"), sometimes a general ___location in a state ("Southeast Wyoming, USA"), otherwise a county ("Smith County, Iowa, USA"), or even a town/city ("Townville, Arknasas, USA") -- it all depends of the scale of the protected area. If the ___location is already big city, I will just leave the nearest city section blank (see Touro Synagogue National Historic Site). Where the ___location is not a big city, on a case by case basis, I may enter something under nearest city (see: Casa Grande Ruins National Monument). — Eoghanacht talk 17:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
- One final thought: For NPS sites, most units have a "Plan Your Visit" section on their nps.gov websites that will identify the nearest gateway city. Other agencies probably have similar information on their websites. — Eoghanacht talk 18:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Red dot placement
Copied (with edits) from Talk:Zion National Park. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The red dot on my browser is now partly in Arizona--MONGO 14:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- That is an interesting point. I've been putting the center of the dot at the ___location of the protected area. Because the dot is quite large, much larger than the protected area in this case, it extends well beyond the boarders of the National Park into Arizona. That doesn't bother me, but I can understand that it may bother some people. I think it is going to happen occasionally if the center of the dot is placed at the ___location of the protected area. See Devils Tower National Monument and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge for other examples.
- Alternatives:
- Place the center of the dot at the ___location of the protected area. Exception: if it would cross a state boundary and the protected area does not, then move the center of the dot directly away from the state boundary until the dot no longer overlaps the state line. I fear this would lead to inconsistency.
- Place the dot as seems best to the editor as long as the protected area is completely contained within the dot boundaries. This might lead to arguments between editors or require adjustments if the dot diameter were decreased.
- Decrease the dot size. This doesn't eliminate the problem but does mitigate it. The disadvantage is that the dot may be harder to see, especially for the visually impaired. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- The red dot is supposed to quickly communicate roughly where in a country (or other base map) the place is located. If the exact ___location seems misleading, I have no problem moving the dot a little. The "___location", "nearest city", and especially the lat/long (which links with multiple map resources) will give someone looking to visit a place more exact navigational information. — Eoghanacht talk 17:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Is it possible that these dots "migrate" somewhat? I have seen a few articles that have had no edits to the loc dot that have moved since the least time I looked at that article. I think it may also have to do with the use of different browers by different editors.--MONGO 17:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- The dot is 3px lower in IE than in Firefox, I found that out when making the locator grid images. Also, the coordinates input don't match up with the real ___location of the locator dot (it just occurred to me that the upper left-hand corner of the dot might be considered 0,0). - Diceman 18:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
- I use IE, so that explains why the dot for Zion National Park appeared to be partially in Arizona, when the park is solely in the state of Utah, just over the northern border of Arizona, hence the shift from my perspective. Thanks, Diceman.--MONGO 09:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- The dot is 3px lower in IE than in Firefox, I found that out when making the locator grid images. Also, the coordinates input don't match up with the real ___location of the locator dot (it just occurred to me that the upper left-hand corner of the dot might be considered 0,0). - Diceman 18:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project
Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 22:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
As from the main page here: Featured articles list (BOLD faced articles were featured on the main page for Wikipedia)
- Bryce Canyon National Park
- Carlsbad Caverns National Park
- National parks of England and Wales
- Rondane National Park
- Shoshone National Forest
- Yellowstone National Park
- Yosemite National Park
- Zion National Park
Related: Geology of the Bryce Canyon area · Geology of the Death Valley area · Geology of the Grand Canyon area · Geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons area · History of the Grand Canyon area · History of the Yosemite area --MONGO 03:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Shameless plug for articles I'm the main author of (many of those are already in your list too): Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve (FA), Death Valley National Park (FA), and geology of the Capitol Reef area (GA, FAC soon). --mav 13:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you..I saw that those first two were not on this list when I copied it from the main protected areas page...I'll fix that now.--MONGO 13:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Any feedback will be greatly appreciated. :) Next step is to find a few good references for the biology of the place and create a biology section at Capitol Reef National Park, then clean-up and cite for FAC. --mav 13:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
experimental Template:CoorHeader
FYI -- I recently noticed (at Washington Monument) this experimental template: {{CoorHeader}}. It puts the coordinates in-line with the article name. It is listed as "disputed" apparently because there is no standard "experimental" header. I am not sure if I like it or not. Since protected areas are places, it seems potentially useful to this project. As our infobox already has the coordinates, I have no plans to "jump on board" with it yet -- nor do I plan to delete it in articles I am planning to add our infobox. — Eoghanacht talk 17:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I created the List of National Monuments of the United States. Please check for factual accuracy and other errors. I did the best I could to identify all areas...we have one redlined article that is listed that needs to be created.--MONGO 22:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I stumbled across this mostly redlined list which is apart of the US-FWS. Do you think we should consider these to be protected areas (and as such within the scope of this project)? ClarkBHM 14:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure. I think many of them are small and I don't know if the land istself is per se a protected area. I recognize the buildings and pools used for these hatcheries are designed to increase fish for stocking rivers and lakes. I would be inclined to exclude them, but I can see no reason that they must be excluded.--MONGO 19:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- I am not sure it belongs here either. Although I am not sure exactly where it would fit. I see it more as an Agriculture issue. Rmhermen 20:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I looked in the IUCN database for "hatchery" and came up with 8 results:
- New Zealand - Government Purpose Reserve - Fish Hatchery Reserve
- New Zealand - Wildlife Management Reserve - Puketurua Trout Hatchery
- United States - Designation Not Known - Bennington Hatchery
- United States - Designation Not Known - Morgan Hatchery
- United States - Designation Not Known - Old West Swanton Hatchery
- United States - Designation Not Known - Roxbury Hatchery
- United States - Designation Not Known - Salisbury Hatchery
- United States - Pond Site - Vernon Hatchery
I am not really sure this provides an answer, though, unless someone knows more about these few examples and why they are listed. For all I know these few may be listed for historical character rather than for wildlife preservation. Some hatcheries help bring back endangered fish species, others I think are just to stock rivers for recreational fishing. — Eoghanacht talk 20:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- And none of those is listed on the National list we are discussing - maybe they are state hatcheries? Rmhermen 00:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent point...indeed, some may have helped restore threatened and endangered fish species...I hadn't even thought about that. The IUCN listing is very helpful, but sometimes out of date...I wonder how often they update their data as there are a lot of NWR's and other areas that hve been created or chamged designation more than 5 years ago that are now either not shown or incorrected attributed.--MONGO 00:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
List of largest national parks
Parima Tapirapecó National Park makes the claim to being the "fifth largest national park in the world". It might be good to have a List of the largest national parks or even List of largest protected areas to double-check claims like these. Any easy ideas on how to build one? Rmhermen 18:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion
Redwood National and State Parks ranks as one of the worst articles in Wikipedia. Maybe someone here would be interested in helping it out a bit? PDXblazers 02:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is lousy...it deserves better. I'll list it and see what I can do.--MONGO 03:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
New stub
I found Becharof Wilderness while stub-sorting. Maybe it's already popped up on you guys' radar, but if not, it has now. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Experimental "Part-of" header template
While working on memorials and historic sites in the District of Columbia, I have often had difficulty sorting what things should be treated as Units (or their equivalent) versus a sub-feature of a larger protected area. The NPS website helps little with this. However specific examples are not really important, because I only bring it up as background to an idea I had...
I just created template {{Part-of}} (experimental for now) to add a link to a parent article to the right side of an article's title line. I placed on the following articles as examples: Zero Milestone, Jefferson Pier, Cape Henry Memorial. These are features of larger parks. For areas that are ambiguous in regards to their unit/pseudo-unit/feature status (such as a National Cemetery within a National Battlefield), I see using this in lieu of the protected area infobox.
If anyone wishes to comment, please drop a note at the template talk page. If the concensus is that this is a bad idea, I shall request it be deleted. Alternately, if a good idea, it could find use in non-Protected-Area articles. — Eoghanacht talk 14:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think it looks fine but I would request a clarification on when its supposed to be used. Old faithful is a part of Yellowstone. No problem. However, is Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge a "part of" the Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge Complex as it is completely administered by it? I would want to keep them separate. We had a small discussion at Talk:List of National Wildlife Refuges about this and figured that individual units within a refuge shouldn't have their own articles, where as individual refuges within a complex should have their own articles. If this template is adopted, we should have guildlines on when should and shouldn't be used. Otherwise, I think its a great idea! ClarkBHM 19:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that some guidelines are in order. Perhaps of the next few days we can suggest some "right" and "wrong" examples. I'll start thinking of some suggestions. — Eoghanacht talk 20:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a decent idea...especially for things like National Capital Parks areas, etc. I can see perhaps how things like "complex" and "refuge" could be linked and still have their own articles... this is also true with wilderness areas...hence, Bob Marshall Wilderness, Scapegoat Wilderness and the Great Bear Wilderness are all within the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex--MONGO 07:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- I started a discussion page for suggested usage at Template talk:Part-of/Suggested usage. I made up several examples of the good, the bad, and the ugly. Contributions/comments are most welcome. — Eoghanacht talk 17:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Coordinates doubled over
I have been noticing that there are coordinates at the top of many protected area articles and just below, the same coordinates in the infoboxes...but I cannot seem to find out how to remove the small and redundant coors at the upper right of the articles...an example is at Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge and there are many others. Does nayone know when this started and why we need it?--MONGO 01:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Recently the a title coordinate display was embedded into the existing Template:Geolinks-US-cityscale. This is causing the display on Yazoo. If you think that is bad, see Old Faithful Geyser where (at least at the time of writing this) there are competing title coordinate templates (the other being Template:Coor title dms - which I actually use on non-infobox articles). I intentionally did not delete one at Old Faithful, so that the the developers of the two templates could (hopefully) sort it out -- but it has been a couple days since I left messages on the template talk pages, without action. Personally, I have never been a fan of the Geolinks template, as I find the 5-line display too cumbersome, but I understand that it is easier for novice users to figure out what is going on, as compared to a simple lat/long link. Examples of the geolinks template is just below (notice it adds the lat/long to the tile line of this talk page). — Eoghanacht talk 12:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Template:Geolinks-US-cityscale
- I see...well, I am not good with templates, but if I can figure out a way to eliminate the coords from the top of the articles I am going to do so. I already took out the redundant coordinate that was really making a mess at Old Faithful Geyser...I can see the top coordinate for articles without the infobox but definitely not in articles that have the infobox...regardless, I can see no reaosn since the links are all at the bottom that we need the coords at the top...just my view. Thanks for the update.--MONGO 13:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmmm... I just realized that they had changed that template to include the coordinates up top. It does seem kind of redundant when its presented that way. However, I felt that having the links under "See also" allowed the novice user a nice way to see maps and aerial photographs of the area. Perhaps we could make our own version of the Geolinks template which doesn't display the coordinates up top? In any event, we should consider whether or not we should standardize the inclusion of these links in protected areas articles... ClarkBHM 14:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- I see...well, I am not good with templates, but if I can figure out a way to eliminate the coords from the top of the articles I am going to do so. I already took out the redundant coordinate that was really making a mess at Old Faithful Geyser...I can see the top coordinate for articles without the infobox but definitely not in articles that have the infobox...regardless, I can see no reaosn since the links are all at the bottom that we need the coords at the top...just my view. Thanks for the update.--MONGO 13:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
For those who follow this page but not featured article candidates, this article is currently being debated for featured status. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Glacier National Park (US). Rmhermen 14:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
New stub proposal
Hi all, I see that there is an NPS Stub. Is there any interest in having a broader "Protected areas" stub that could be used for everything from National Forests to National Grasslands, to National Wildlife Refuges, etc.? ClarkBHM 15:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Remember that this is an international project - not just one for U.S. protected sites. Rmhermen 16:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. I am well aware of that. However, as you know, the NPS stub is only used for US protected sites. I'm looking for something that can be used for protected areas which are not NPS locations, regardless of where they are... ClarkBHM 17:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I still don't understand if you are proposing an international protected area stub or just a U.S. protected area stub. You're first comment lists only U.S. designations but your second says "regardless of where they are". I would definitely support an international tag. I am not as sure of a U.S. one but it would probably be useful as well. Rmhermen 17:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm proposing either, or both. I mentioned the US designations because those are the ones that I'm primarily working on... ClarkBHM 18:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I still don't understand if you are proposing an international protected area stub or just a U.S. protected area stub. You're first comment lists only U.S. designations but your second says "regardless of where they are". I would definitely support an international tag. I am not as sure of a U.S. one but it would probably be useful as well. Rmhermen 17:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. I am well aware of that. However, as you know, the NPS stub is only used for US protected sites. I'm looking for something that can be used for protected areas which are not NPS locations, regardless of where they are... ClarkBHM 17:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'd have to see it. You mean a template that links all protected area stubs together?--MONGO 20:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, not a template. A stub that indicates that the particular protected area article is not completed. It'll allow us to tag things that should be worked on later. Something like Template:Wyoming-geo-stub. ClarkBHM 20:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Protected area portal
Proposal for a new portal to include international coverage of protected areas and places, including World Heritage sites, U.S. National Register of Historic Places (hundreds of articles and stubs), &tc.. See also: Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals/Archive#Historic_preservation. – dogears (talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm supportive of this, as there are numerous featured articles for this topic. I suggest a list be generated of all the featured articles, as well as good articles. Another requirement for portals is that they are properly maintained. I expect WikiProject participants could help maintain the portal. Take a look at Wikipedia:Featured portals for more ideas. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 15:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The proposal is not for parks, etc.; it is for designated buildings (and is being called related to Portal:Architecture). Rmhermen 17:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)