Template/format for all locations (4 Viewers)

[Ben M]

Just had a quick scan of the above... will write more later tonight, but...

Delia, yes I was referring to those types of categories |=)|

I think I have worked out the high-level category thing, so briefly...

If [[Category:Locations]] is the only content of an article, it will be listed as a high-level location. Otherwise it will appear in the longer list. The reason why Europe is not appearing is because the page is only showing the first 200 entries, which are A-C, so only the high-level categories that start with A, B, or C are shown. On the E page, Europe is shown as a high-level location!

More in a few hours |=)|

 

[Ben M]

I would like to disagree about ownership in the titles. I think this is a bit of Anglo-American cultural difference, as so many more of the American sites are public land that it seems both entirely natural and a straight statement of fact to place "National Park", "National Wildlife Refuge," etc. in the title. Change of ownership is rather less likely than with private organizations...

I wasn't suggesting that phrases like "National Park" be removed... only hinting that we should be consistent in where we draw the line (if we draw one!). My local patch is called "Bestwood Country Park" and removing the "Country Park" bit would imply a different location. So I think I'm agreeing with you |=)| I do think there's a strong case for removing organization names like "RSPB" from titles, though.

 

[Ben M]

I have been lurking a little here lately, but just one question: is there a coherent explanation for how to use categories anywhere? in other words, going beyond placing a tag in a line of an entry to indicate that it belongs to a category, what else needs to be done to actually have the parent category page? and can a page duplicate as a category page and one with meaningfull description? In other words, could a location description of a country at the same time be the category page for the individual locations?

thanks
Niels

For categories there is a help page, but it doesn't go into every detail.
There is also post #63 of this thread, where I explained how I set up the listing entries with a certain category behaviour I wanted. I think this post also answers some of your questions.

 

[Ben M]

But where has 'Europe' come from?

The Europe Category page lists all entries that have [[Category:Europe]] in them.

And, if a 'new' country was to be added to Europe :-O how would you get it included?

In the article for the new country just add [[Category:Europe]]

More confusingly... click on 'I' and you get sub categories of Lazio (Italy) and Middle East but not Italy.

These pages list 200 entries, and as there are less than 200 I entries, the subsequent letters are also listed, up until 200 entries are covered. On the I page, the letters I, J, K, L, and M are also covered, so any categories starting with any of those letters are included (currently: Lazio (Italy) and Middle East). Italy doesn't appear because it doesn't exist yet, nobody has added [[Category:Italy]] to an entry (I think?).

Some of the Italian articles are:

just Italy... others are ... Italy and Sardinia / Sicily.

All seem to be the latter, at present.

 

[Ben M]

I think this happens automatically, although I'm not quite sure how.

I just tested the missing Georgia category I mentioned above, setting up a very brief stub for a location with a nesting colony of that typical southeastern pinewoods bird, the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. When I wrote [[Category: Georgia]] into the listing alongside stubs and locations, it automatically created a category under [[Category: Europe]]. I just edited that to the proper [[Category: United States]]; when we add locations near Tblisi in the Caucasus we'll need some kind of disambiguation page. Wikipedia adopts "Georgia (country)" vs. "Georgia (U.S. state)" which seems sensible enough.

Now, what I'd really like to know is how to add categories to the main Category: Locations page. Both Africa and Europe are high-level subcategories directly underneath this page, but only the first actually appears on the main portal. I might add that the search function does not handle categories well. For these kind of large searches, a category is really a much better result than a page text match, and yet Category:Europe is only accessible from the individual subpages, not from a general search.

I've made changes to list as the U.S. state, which will hopefully prevent others from encountering the same problem. Although we're talking about categories, someone should probably set up a brief disambiguation article.

 

[Ben M]

Although we're talking about categories, someone should probably set up a brief disambiguation article.

I've just had a go at doing this myself using a generic parent category: Georgia

When a site is created for the country Georgia, it should have [[Category: Georgia (country)]] added to it. I've already created that category and listed it in Europe and the generic parent category.

 

[jthoppes]

I wasn't suggesting that phrases like "National Park" be removed... only hinting that we should be consistent in where we draw the line (if we draw one!). My local patch is called "Bestwood Country Park" and removing the "Country Park" bit would imply a different location. So I think I'm agreeing with you |=)| I do think there's a strong case for removing organization names like "RSPB" from titles, though.

Very good, sounds like we're on the same page. I'll continue rearranging things in the western US and somebody shout "stop!" if I start drawing inconsistent lines...

 

[delia todd]

Got bored this evening so had a go at this

Thoughts?

D

 

[njlarsen]

I think the first one looks fine! Now if we could put in a symbol for a square in each of them ...

How easy is it to insert the missing species in the middle of a list?

Cheers
Niels

 

[delia todd]

I think the first one looks fine! Now if we could put in a symbol for a square in each of them ...

How easy is it to insert the missing species in the middle of a list?

Cheers
Niels

Hi Niels

As long as each row wasn't initially completely filled, it would be easy enough, just insert the species.

I can't see any mention of 'boxes' in the Help menu.

D

 

[Ben M]

Not sure that I've understood correctly, but I've added an alternative to the bottom of the page, which has simulated check boxes.

 

[delia todd]

Not sure that I've understood correctly, but I've added an alternative to the bottom of the page, which has simulated check boxes.

Oooh whey hey Ben, we seem to be getting somewhere:t::-O

I was going to suggest that there were no more than, say, 8 species on a row, but with the check boxes, I think it should be left at 6, so species can be added without throwing out the layout.

D

 

[Ben M]

Oooh whey hey Ben, we seem to be getting somewhere:t::-O

I was going to suggest that there were no more than, say, 8 species on a row, but with the check boxes, I think it should be left at 6, so species can be added without throwing out the layout.

D

I'd even go so far as to say just 5. It leaves a comfortable gap for users who have their default text size larger, and makes it easier to count the total number of species |=)|

I'd like to stress that we shouldn't be hard coding the check lists like this though... it should be relatively simple for the admin to automate this by redefining the current macro. So keep doing check lists the way they're already done.

 

[delia todd]

Good point Ben - I'd go along with that.

The only problem I can see is some of the Check-lists have a lot of other information in them

see Galapagos Islands

and there are a few others like that, so whether that one, in particular, should be broken down into each Island, I don't know - or how else it could be handled:h?:

A number of Check-lists have the likes of (Sp) and (W) in them too.

D

 

[delia todd]

Good point Ben - I'd go along with that.

The only problem I can see is some of the Check-lists have a lot of other information in them

see Galapagos Islands

and there are a few others like that, so whether that one, in particular, should be broken down into each Island, I don't know - or how else it could be handled:h?:

A number of Check-lists have the likes of (Sp) and (W) in them too.

D

I've thought of a possible solution to Galapagos...

What if we re-name the current Check-list then copy just the species into a new Check-list?

D

 

[Ben M]

I've thought of a possible solution to Galapagos...

What if we re-name the current Check-list then copy just the species into a new Check-list?

D

I think I know what you mean, but can you clarify...

A "check list" with added details like time of year and specific locations and a "species list" with just species names?

Two "lists" in the Galapagos (and similar) entries, or in all entries?

Should both lists contain the same species, or will one be a subset of the other?

 

[delia todd]

I think I know what you mean, but can you clarify...

A "check list" with added details like time of year and specific locations and a "species list" with just species names?

Two "lists" in the Galapagos (and similar) entries, or in all entries?

Should both lists contain the same species, or will one be a subset of the other?

Yes, it was just the Galapagos one I was thinking of (maybe use the same format if there are some equally 'difficult' ones).

D

Edit: sorry got the 'bold' wrong... Just Galapagos I'm talking about LOL

 

[pigsonthewing]

I think it's appropriate to have a thread for any discussion that relates specifically to locations.

You might want to make the template output an hCard microformat, including coordinates. I did this for over 200 templates on Wikipedia and can assist, if you wish.

I've done it manually, on http://www.birdforum.net/opus/Belvide_Reservoir so you can see what I mean.

 

[delia todd]

You might want to make the template output an hCard microformat, including coordinates. I did this for over 200 templates on Wikipedia and can assist, if you wish.

I've done it manually, on http://www.birdforum.net/opus/Belvide_Reservoir so you can see what I mean.

Hi Andy

Thanks for your interest in helping the Locations along.

Unfortunately ... I really haven't a clue what you're talking about :gh: and the links to Wiki are in techi speak as well, so I'm completely stuck :h?:

Looking at the Belvide page I can see there's a lot of code in the Overview... but it doesn't appear to 'do' anything

Erm.... could you try an explanation in um... words of 1 syllable (preferably English:-O)

D

 

[Keith Dickinson]

If I've been reading the wiki article correctly, the hcard format presents sensitive information in a format that web spiders cannot pick up so you can post an e-mail address, or other information, without fear of spiders reading it.
So the code you can see in the overview is protecting the information in the overview from being harvested by spammers.
I think!


Nice idea but to implement it across the whole of Opus would be a colossal task