Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

For current discussions, see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas

Survey of NP articles

A survey of U.S. National Park articles today shows 18 have no article yet, 23 have articles but no box (a number are only poor stubs), and only 8 so far have a box and locator map. Rmhermen 16:27, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

There is much to do Tiles 23:18, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have done four more boxes since then so 18, 19 and 12 (I think). Rmhermen 14:29, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Status

I have used Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected Areas/Status to try to get some idea on the number and type of articles covered by/related to this project. Overall it seems that the main thrust of this project -to creat a series of articles titled Protected areas of (i.e. Levels 1 through 3) has been a non-starter. Only Level 4 seems to see much use - and even then only as a style sheet for national parks. (which isn't a bad thing to have) I recently used Protected areas of the United States to give an overview of the various levels and management agencies operating protected areas in the United States. But that isn't, as far as I can tell, what the only other national level article Protected areas of Australia does. In fact, I can't quite determine what that page and the related state level articles are showing. Why are some national parks on the Australia page (which is the redirect for the List of Australian national parks) but most are only listed on state level pages? Is this some unexplained peculiarity of the Australian system? Are these Protected area pages necessary or are other countries' systems simpler than the U.S.'s system and so could be handled another way? Rmhermen 20:03, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

If I remember correctly from my visits to Australia, the so-called Commonwealth parks (including the 6 national parks on Protected areas of Australia) are managed on a national level, while the ones mentioned on state level articles are managed by these states, even if they are called national parks. I should check it, but I think areas are proposed on a state level, accepted (or rejected) on a national level and maintained on a state level. D.D. 20:45, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

That would appear to explain it. I will try to add an explanation on the various pages. Rmhermen 14:20, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

What about state parks?

I think I got from the various preceding conversations that state parks fall under this project, but I couldn't figure out which infobox color to use. For example, the List of Arizona state parks has only a few implemented parks, but none have an infobox. (Not that I have most of that info anyway, but I thought I'd ask--) Elf | Talk 05:39, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure. I think it would be helpful if state parks did have boxes -but I haven't found an example of an article with one yet. Apparently very few state parks have received IUCN levels -I could only find ten in Arizona. I will add some newer lists to the project page like World Database on Protected Areas. I suppose we should have a color (or absence of color) for unassigned. Rmhermen 16:54, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Featured article

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)

Smoky Mountains

I've done some work lately on the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and was wondering if anyone could make a map locator for it. If you add it to the page, feel free to move one of the pictures off if they won't both fit with the locator - the pictures are very similar and we probably only need one of that type. Sayeth 02:11, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

I added the map and box. Rmhermen 04:09, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks great! Sayeth 15:10, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

National park article

User:El C and I have a dispute over the proper number and size of pictures in the national park article. Any other opinions would be appreciated. Rmhermen 18:27, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Park categories

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)

Reformatting coordinates

The current version of Manual of Style for Geographical coordinates suggests the use of Template:Coor and its derivatives. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates attemps to develop uses for these coordinates, currently in many different forms (rarely as well formed as those of your Infobox), but without a real use.

I'd like to suggest to update the template for protected areas in accordance with the new guidelines for coordinates and merge the cell for latitude and longitude. The title for the new cell could be "Coordinates" or "Latitude"<br>"Longitude" (on two lines). Depending on the coordinates, they could still wrap on two lines.

Some of the templates have already been updated by bot (D6) together with many other coordinates. I had search for a reference for the many fact sheets (from 2003) for the Australian national parks, but didn't find any. I had updated them yesterday (according to the proposal at WikiProject Geographical coordinates together with a few infoboxes, e.g. Organ_Pipes_National_Park (which I now found (thanks to Rmhermen) to be part of this projects.

Obviously, I would fix/update the infoboxes to the format you prefer. For now, I would fix the Latitude header that remains on some of the infobox to the version at Organ_Pipes_National_Park and not convert coordinates with the text "category:National park". Please excuse that I didn't find the way here earlier. -- User:Docu

Following the absence of comments/requests for changes, I updated the two sample infoboxes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected areas/General. It now includes: "Coordinates" instead of "Latitude" and "Longitude". -- User:Docu

I had no objection to the change to coordinates but the template looks poorly especially when displaying degree-minutes-seconds where you might have only seconds on a second line. Couldn't we get it back onto two lines so it looks nice. Rmhermen 17:17, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

_:Following a change in Template:Coor dms (addition of &nbsp;), coordinates with seconds no longer wrap correctly if the template is used in a table built in the |-table format (line break not after latitude). I suggested at #March 21 revision of Template:Coor dms to remove this. We could use "Latitude" and "Longitude" in one cell on two lines instead of "Coordinates" which might wrap the coordinates on two lines as well. -- User:Docu

I wouldn't think that would work but could you try one and see? I would expect it to require a change to the coor template. Rmhermen 01:06, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

We are experimenting at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mountains#Conversion_of_coordinates_to_Template:Coor. It appears to be a bug of the new table format. -- User:Docu

List of PAs done/to be done?

First of all, hello. I just joined this project.

Second, is there a list of PAs that have already been done and need to be done or do we just cruise around the Wikipedia and update the ones that we find need updating?

very little has been done to the standards of this project. I did a general survey at Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected Areas/Status. There are lots of park articles although few with infoboxes, there are many articles on parks agencies but little standardization and there are few state/province or national survey articles at all. Rmhermen 01:38, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Standardization of PA entries

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)

Real Template

This project is listed on a template page somwehere that I cannot find again, but there is no Wiki template. Sure, there is a template in the real definition of the word, but not in the technical definition of the templates used on Wikimedia software projects. Has anyone considered a Wiki template for this project? I wanted to experiment with templates, so I am in the process of making some templates. See my user page for my first attempt. Mrendo 30 June 2005 18:00 (UTC)

I thought about it but decided it was too difficult for me. But yours looks pretty good. I noticed you don't have a coordinates line though. As long as you just copy the existing style and layout to use as the template, you can add it to the /General subpage once you get it working. Rmhermen June 30, 2005 18:17 (UTC)

I still have to think a little bit about the coordinates. It may be a little less user-friendly than I had hoped. One would have to specify a named field for each part of the coordinate (for Degrees Lat, Minutes Lat, Direction Lat and so forth) as opposed to a list of six (or eight) values, like the Template:Coor dm template uses. Thanks for your input. Mrendo 1 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)

Can't you include the Template:Coor dm in the new template? Rmhermen July 1, 2005 15:11 (UTC)

I have put all my templates in the Template namespace. I changed El Morro National Monument to use the template. There's something wrong, though. Without the template the text of the article starts at the same line as the infobox - and the infobox makes the text wrap correctly. With the template, the text starts after the last line of the infobox, which is not very effective. If you view my latest changed to El Morro National Monument, and then the previous version, you can see the difference. Does anyone have any ideas on how to fix this? Are there any other comments about the infobox? I did start using Template:Coor dm in this version, BTW. Mrendo 9 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)

The Formatting Section

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)

IUCN status

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)

Is it time to rethink the Protected Areas Infobox? - Please Vote -

Introduction

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:

1. Below, please vote on whether or not to you think we should rethink the infobox.
2. 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).
3. Have a period for voting on individual proposals.

If taken to step 3, then the revised infobox would be finalized. &#151; Eoghanacht ^talk 20:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Some current thoughts

Some current thoughts/questions bounced around include:

• Use of a wiki-template, rather than a simple table
• How much space to devote to location
• What the image box should contain
• Link to a protected area's main website
• Color coding according IUCN categories, or to something (like legal designation)
• Degrees-minutes vs. D-M-S for coordinates

If we move to proposals, you are free to suggest other topics than these.

Vote

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. &#151; Eoghanacht ^talk 20:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Change as noted above, using templates for particular protected areas based on their protection status. Add coordinates that show D/M/S for precision rather than just degrees and minutes. MONGO 00:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Change: wiki templates (which allow optional rows), displayed image, etc. -- hike395 03:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Change: wiki template sounds good. --Viriditas | Talk 05:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Change to wikitemplate although I don't see that this requires a vote. Don't put image in table. Don't try to add seconds to areas that already may span degrees and whose locations are denoted by guessing a likely middle. Does anything about color-coding need changing? Rmhermen 13:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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. &#151; Eoghanacht ^talk 14:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Change: I agree with the concept of converting the table to a template.--Lordkinbote 03:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Change: I realize I'm not (yet) a member of this project, and I'm late to the table, but I just did a bunch of work on a new template for rivers and I learned some great techniques. I'm offering to help with the redesign. All of the coloring could be done with CSS, and some fields could be made optional (gracefully), so I think this could be one template if done right. It would also be nice if it was closer in style to the original {{Infobox}}. —Papayoung ☯ 03:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Discuss: I am the author of the Wiki template for the Protected Areas. (Thank you, Eoghanacht, for letting me know of this discussion.) There are some ways to improve the template, I'm sure, with respect to Wiki template pogramming, but I wasn't quite sure how to do them. It does accept seconds as a parameter. I did not invoke a sub-template which used them since most protected areas are so large you'd be foolish to narrow their locations down to seconds. Therefore you will not see seconds. I wanted a way to make the seconds optional in the infobox (Use either a D/M or a D/M/S subtemplate, but I couldn't figure that out.) If you are unsure how to use the template, see the Tamplate Talk page for an example. Template talk:Protected Area Table You might want to pay special attention to the "IUCN" field, which takes care of the "IUCN Cat" line of the infobox and also colors the title.

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)

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)

---

There seems to be agreement to move to a template at least, and to discuss some other options.

Please vote on various proposals (page now archived).

As there seems no particular rush on this, I somewhat arbitrarily decided to allow a week for proposals (thro' October 21, 2005) and two weeks from now (thro' October 28) for voting. If anyone thinks this is too short, just drop me a note. &#151; Eoghanacht ^talk 19:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Further discussion

I seem to have missed this entirely while working on getting WikiProject Michigan up, but I want to make sure that we all agrre that there is one Infobox, not a U.S. infobox. Creating a new style of infobox for each of dozens of countries would be completely against the idea of a directing Wikiproject. Rmhermen 00:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

There is actually nothing country-specific about the new Template:Infobox protected area, and User:Papayoung said he would look into base locator maps for some other nations. When he has a couple, I was thinking of showing examples of them on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected Areas/Infobox page, and maybe dropping a note to people actively working on protected areas outside the U.S.

The only reason why I added "U.S." to the title originally, was because as far as I could see, the project mainly dealt with U.S. and Australian parks, each with a somewhat different table (and since then, Australian users had revised the table further for their National Parks, even removing the IUCN color coding). I agree there is no particular benefit to every nation having its own style of infobox for national parks, &c. I have even used it for one state park so far, but would prefer newer maps before I do more. &#151; Eoghanacht ^talk 12:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to add for the record that a IUCN colour-coding scheme was later implemented on the Australian Parks. - Diceman 14:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Diceman, I had not noticed until yesterday than y'all had reinstated the color coding. Also, I did not mean it negatively, only to underline the apparent further divergence of the infoboxes. One advantage of a template-based infoxbox is that if there is a desire later to modify the colors again, it can be done once on the template, and would not require revising dozens of articles. &#151; Eoghanacht ^talk 16:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I want to chime in with a clear message that the work we've just done on the Infobox template was intended to create a non-country-specific resource. If there are things we missed that limit its use, please let us know before we move on to other things. Thanks, —Papayoung ☯ 20:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

New Locator Image for Infoboxes

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)

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)

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)

Update: If you want to use locator maps without having to create a custom map for your protected area articles, the Infobox template for this project has that feature built in. If you want a stand-alone locator map, see the instructions and example for the template {{Superimpose}}. —Papayoung ☯ 20:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Location mapping

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)

New infobox template, proposed messagebox template

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: {{WikiProject Protected areas}}

Any comments? &#151; Eoghanacht ^talk 15:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I like it...!--MONGO 21:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to change Template:Infobox protected area

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)

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 &#151; Eoghanacht ^talk 19:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Links

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)

Wilderness Area links/article titles

Since many of the existing red links to the areas include the word "Area"[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc., and older Wilderness Area articles tend to also include "Area"[11] I think it would be safer to use the full name, such as Mount Baker Wilderness Area instead of omitting the last word when creating the articles (at least in the US, although this[12] implies the same may be true for Australia). 24.17.48.241 23:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

But that means doing a renaming for many dozens of wildernesses and as far as what I have seen, most of the wildernesses I have done, do not use the term "area". This is true as to the actual federal title of the wilderness and from what I have seen in wilderness.net. If we do an article that has the title area as the official title designation, the term "area" may apply, but I have only come across one or two.--MONGO 01:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with MONGO. Seems to me that we add redirects for the area cases and remove area from the source articles as we see them. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirects would certainly be an improvement over the current situation having a bunch of red links even tho' the articles exist under shorter names, but given how many appear fully spelled out on maps, and that the parent articles/cats are U.S. Wilderness Area (not U.S. Wilderness area or U.S. Wilderness), List of U.S. Wilderness Areas (not List of U.S. Wilderness areas or List of U.S. Wildernesses), and Category:U.S. Wilderness Areas (not Category:U.S. Wilderness areas or Category:U.S. Wildernesses), and every US Forest Service, or other US gov site article header I've seen includes Area, EG "Mt. Baker Wilderness Area"fs.fed.us, "Gros Ventre Wilderness Area"recreation.gov, "Sipsey Wilderness Area"epa.gov, "Majory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness Area"nps.gov and non-gov "Craters of the Moon National Wilderness Area"wilderness.net, "Petrified Forest National Wilderness Area" wilderness.net, "Tionesta Wilderness Area"wilderness.net (and that excludes the PDF, DOC, and article text-only wilderness.net references, such as "Rainbow Lake Wilderness Area"[13]), I think people will be more likely to look for, and link to, the full names, tying up a bunch of bandwidth chasing redirs around. Just in WA alone, the map shows "Mt. Baker Wilderness Area", "Noisy-Diobsud Wilderness Area", "Henry M. Jackson Wilderness Area", "Boulder River Wilderness Area", "Buckhorn Wilderness Area", The Brothers Wilderness Area, Mt. Skokomish Wilderness Area", "Colonel Bob Wilderness Area", "Goat Rocks Wilderness Area", "Tatoosh Wilderness Area", "Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area", "Norse Peak Wilderness Area", "Clearwater Wilderness Area", "William O. Douglass Wilderness Area", "Salmo-Priest Wilderness Area", "Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness Area", "Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness Area", and "Paysaten Wilderness Area", all 18 as "Wilderness Area"s, with only 4, "Juniper Dunes Wilderness", "Mount Adams Wilderness", "Trapper Creek Wilderness", and "Indian Heaven Wilderness", omitting the word "Area". People reading newspapers or TV news sites are likely to be looking for "Area", as well: "Dolly Sods Wilderness Area"[14], "Chiricahua Wilderness Area"[15], "Holy Cross Wilderness Area"[16], "West Canada Lakes Wilderness Area"[17]. 24.17.48.241 05:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. That is an impressively long list (Mt. Baker ... Indian Heaven in the middle of your message). You refer to a map. What map is that?

When I saw your message, I took a quick look at my USFS maps before commenting. I looked again just now. On the Wenatchee National Forest Map (USFS), area is omitted on all 7 wildernesses. On the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Map (USFS), area is omitted on all 10 wildernesses. On the Willamette National Forest Map (USFS), area is omitted on all 6 wildernesses."Area" is omitted on the Pasayten and Goat Rocks Wilderness Maps (USFS). Thank you for looking into this.

Have you considered creating an account? It's free and does not appear to generate spam. Go to the link to see the benefits. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

While some of those mentioned, do indeed have the word"area" in the title, they are still few compared to the almost 700 wildernesses that exist...the official federal government title, recognized by the appropriate federal websites rarely use the word. Wilderness.net is not a federal website...--MONGO 08:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Just please don't start doing a pile of page moves unless you know for sure the official federal name is documented...when I do wilderness articles and I find any that have the word "area" in the offcial title, I will ensure that I do use the word. I checked all the ones I have created and I don't think any of them use that word, but surely it is used...I appreciate you bringing it to my attention.--MONGO 09:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You can use the U.S. Geological Survey's website[18] to check official names of places. Rmhermen 22:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Disclamer

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)

• User:Boothy443 is referring to the disclaimers at the top and bottom of the template that I oftentimes use to ensure that the hard work that some put in to develop the template aren't messed with by newer editors when they try to add text to the main portion of the article...this is important as I doubt we are all going to watch list 2 thousand articles. Regardless, Boothy443 does have a point in that the disclaimers do create a space on the top of the article page...which is apparently a real big deal, to him. Since he was kind enough to volunteer his concensus building rhetoric here and here I will, of course, admit I must be blind then.--MONGO 09:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• User:Kross did the same thing as Boothy433 for probably the same reason. I share the blindness problem. It is good we have others looking over our shoulders. I think this is a bug. Is it reasonable to submit a bug report and keep the notice? On the other had, if Boothy443 is correct that such notices do no good, then it should be deleted. Such notices helped me as a new editor. However, I probably would have managed without them. Whether they help those who really need them is another question. I think it is very possible that Boothy433 is right. See User_talk:Kross#Mount_Rushmore for more on the Kross edit. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

• I agree with Boothy. Commonsense would say that any newbies would probably scroll down past the infobox. And it does leave an ugly gap at the top of the page.--Kross | Talk 23:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It may be a bug, or the disclaimer is not formatted right.--MONGO 09:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• A bug report, Bug 4161: Comments introduce unwanted blank lines at TOP when page is rendered, was submitted on this problem. [19] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox, include image?

In looking at some historical site articles (e.g. Statue of Liberty and Ford's Theatre — doesn't even use the infobox), I think these are instances where an image of the place belongs in the top right corner of the page, rather than the locator map. When I came across the Statue of Liberty article, the image was on the top left and interferred with the text and headings. I've moved it, but it's now below the infobox and map. I think the image is emblematic of the place and belongs above the map.

I propose an alternative infobox be available for cases where a good image is available and appropriate. A draft of this idea is at Template:Infobox_protected_area/Draft1, and implemented as an example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected Areas/Statue of Liberty.

Any thoughts? ---Aude 16:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking at more articles at Category:U.S._National_Historic_Sites, there is no infobox or standard at all. I think these should follow something similar to the Infobox_protected_area template and provide the option of putting an image above the map. ---Aude 16:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have been slowly adding the infobox to various non-"national park" protected areas, including national historic sites, historical parks, battlefields, memorials, etc. (Some have the old infobox still, some have never had the infobox added.) The current infobox recently went through a retool, with interested parties suggesting ideas for improving it -- there were no suggestions for either removing the map, nor inserting a picture.

I have tried various combinations of image locations (including adding it to an infobox) and can't say I am totally happy with any of them. Frankly, I simply do not like the look of both the image and the map in the infobox. The best placement I have found so far is to the left in the second paragraph -- however for longer articles this can cause problems with the Table of Contents. (The table of contents can be turned off, but that is usually not an acceptable solution). Perhaps this is a general question for infoboxes in general, and should be brought up at Wikipedia talk:Infobox? Also, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected Areas/Infobox is probably a better place to bring up any future protected-area-infobox-specific items, rather than here. (For the record, though, I am totally opposed to having a different infobox for historic sites -- the general-use infobox should be able to work for all protected areas.) — Eoghanacht ^talk 14:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Protected Areas/Infobox. I'll copy these comments to the talk page there. ---Aude 15:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Regional/local-scale park maps

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Quality of locator maps

I'd like to talk about locator maps. Statue of Liberty, for example (at least the current version) has a map of the US, with a dot covering all of New York City. I think our goal should be to make these maps as informative as possible. Hence, it would be an improvement if that article instead had a map of the New York City area, with a dot or some other identifying mark showing where the Statue is. Anyone who doesn't know where New York City is can easily find out, by looking at the maps at New York City, New York, and United States.

For an example of this idea, see Collegiate Peaks Wilderness. Instead of a mere dot, there's a map that shows the precise shape and location of the wilderness area.

This seems like a fairly uncontroversial idea to me; so how come I keep finding articles where detailed maps have been replaced by Image:US Locator Blank.svg? (E.g. Powderhorn Wilderness.) Is that just accidental; or do people feel that using a single locator map of the US is better? dbenbenn | talk 21:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Acadia National Park is another example. I just moved Kmf164's beautiful map into the infobox; the map is much more useful than the default US locator map. dbenbenn | talk 21:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the locator map was the product of a lot of work on the part of several editors. We simply cannot find appropriate maps to insert in the template for all protected areas but there is certainly no reason to not have the maps you like in the article for a more specific location. The infobox template allows everyone from all over the world to get a roughg idea of where the protected area is as compared to the entire U.S. I, for one, when I look at a protected area in another country outside the U.S., say South Africa for instance, if given just a local map, do not know where that is as far as the entire country is. It would be best if we continued to use the locator map as shown in the template information and put more specific location maps elsewhere in the article. We have to remember that this is an international project. One example with both that works fine is Shoshone National Forest in which we have the standard U.S. locator in the template and a more detailed map just a little further down in the article.--MONGO 22:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, I think it's easy enough to follow links to find out where things are. For example, from Tankwa Karoo National Park you can follow the links to Northern Cape Province and Western Cape Province, then to South Africa, to learn where the park is.

Alternatively, why shouldn't a protected area such as Powderhorn Wilderness use a locator map of the entire world? As you said, this is an international project. The point is that anyone who doesn't know where the US is can find out by looking at United States.

As another alternative, how about using the detailed state maps at each US state article, and putting dots on those. Again, anyone who doesn't know where Alaska is can easily find out at that article, and a dot on Image:US Locator Blank.svg is especially useless for Alaska locations.

Anyway, what do other people think? If the use of "US Locator Blank.svg" has a big consensus, I certainly won't fight it. dbenbenn | talk 22:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems rather silly to think a locator map of the entire world is necessary. Guess what, you were not around for the vote and a number of other editors, myself included believed that this new template and locator map were the best way to go, so any changes you make are unilateral. Since most of the people who work on the english version of wikipedia are probably going to be from areas that are well aware of the locations of India, the U.S., Britain, Germany, Canada, and Australia are, why would we put a map of the whole world out there? What exactly is wrong with the map that is now in hundreds of articles and a more detailed map also, but not as a part of the template? The only argument I heard that might be reasonable is for small site specific areas such as the Statue of liberty, having an image of that site instead of the map because PD sources for good images are readily availible and the protected area is usually very small in size. I think the map you have now in Collegiate Peaks Wilderness is lousy...but that is just my opinion.--MONGO 07:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey. I've been away for several days and just came across this discussion. I agree with MONGO, and think the infobox needs to present something uniform and consistent across the many articles it's used in. The US Locator Blank.svg dot maps are widely available (or easy-to-create). Furthermore, these are the same type of map as often used with the city infobox. The Acadian National Park map is an attempt to create something more detailed for national parks, to accompany the infobox maps and information. It is just one map for one park, with nothing similar yet done for other parks. It will be quite a while (if ever) before we have higher quality maps for all protected areas in all countries. — see WikiProject Maps. ---Aude 19:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

MONGO wrote "I think the map you have now in Collegiate Peaks Wilderness is lousy". Seriously, do others agree with this assesment? Is it really better to have

rather than

The detailed map tells you how big the wilderness area is, shows what counties it's in, and shows where it is relative to Interstate Highways. (Also, you can see from the detailed map that the dot is misplaced; the wilderness area is actually in the west half of the state, not the east half.) The only thing my map doesn't show is where Colorado is in the US; and as I've written above, that's easy to learn by clicking the link to Colorado. MONGO wrote: "Guess what, you were not around for the vote". Well, no, I wasn't. I was working on actually making maps; I didn't even know this WikiProject existed. Does that mean I don't have the right to now express an opinion? Anyway, if they aren't going to be used in articles, I guess I won't bother making any more maps. "It will be quite a while (if ever) before we have higher quality maps": especially if you frighten off map makers by refusing the use the maps that actually get made.

Again, just to clarify: I have nothing against using "US Locator Blank.svg" when there is no better map. What I dislike is the idea that better maps have to be replaced by the US locator, merely for consistency. dbenbenn | talk 19:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't have both the locator map and a detailed map? ---Aude 20:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I really do believe that the locator map is the better map in this context. It clearly locates the park in the context of a easily recognizable geopolitical entity and does this in a fairly standard Wikipedia manner. The second map is a mess of different land uses, water features, roads?, other? The only thing it shows better is the outline shape of the park. Many articles could use a second map to show this information but I would still maintain that your second example attempts to display to much information. Rmhermen 23:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I want to apologize for referring to the map Dbenbenn prefers as being "lousy"...that was not a polite manner in which I should be communicating. I have no problem with the map being a part of the article for more detail, but am opposed to it being a part of the template. I recently had another editor create the South Africa map to match in color and design the ones we already have for the U.S. and Australia. I would personally prefer that we continue to maintain some system of regimentation throughout all protected areas worldwide...guess that is my regimentation. I fully support additional maps within the body of the article but believe that since this is a project that has worldwide scope, a relatively basic locator map in the template near the beginning of the article is the best way to go. Kmf164 has created an excellent map for Acadia National Park that makes me want to go a purchase the software so that I can duplicate this effort for other areas...not that I have the artistic ability to do so. I personally feel that the map Dbennbenn supports lacks roads, mountains, and identifying points that render it useful to those that are in need of more accurate info. Please don't take this as a personal insult...it is not intended to be that way.--MONGO 02:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Brindabella in Australia - merger of park into article about area?

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)

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)

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)

"Every park, a page." is my policy. Rmhermen 04:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)