Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas/U.S. Infobox Proposals (2005)

Splendor in the Grass National Park
Splendor in the Grass National Park
IUCN category II (national park)
	Map of the United states
Location	Colorado, USA
Nearest city	Boulder, Colorado
Coordinates	40°6′9″N 84°37′41″W / 40.10250°N 84.62806°W
Area	50,000 acres (20,230 hectares)
Established	January 1, 1907
Visitors	654,321 (in 2005)
Governing body	National Park Service

This page is an archive of the discussion about proposed changes to the Protected Areas Infobox. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the project's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was:

Support concept of Proposal #0, but with a different template (see Proposal #2).
Adopt proposals #1 – #4 (with discussion on minor aspects of #4 still possible on the template talk page).

 Eoghanacht ^talk 12:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Areas Infobox Proposals[edit]

Based on a vote from the WikiProject Protected areas talk page there is interest in discussing modifications to the Protected Areas Infobox. The purpose of this page is to work toward concensus on ideas that anyone may have, in preparation of moving to a template standard for the infobox.

The period for submitting new proposals is now closed.

From October 14, 2005 until October 28, you may vote or comment on a proposal, or change your vote. Vote either "Support" or "Oppose." Please sign your vote with four tildes (~~~~).

Proposal #0: Use a template[edit]

<!-- BEGIN Protected Areas Infobox, see "Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected Areas/Infobox"" -->
{{Protected Area Table
  | Area Name =  Lost in the Woods
  | Locator = Map_of_USA_Locator_blank.png
  | Designation = [[U.S. National Park|National Park]]
  | Location = [[Ohio]], [[United States|USA]]
  | City = [[Greenville, Ohio|Greenville, OH]]
  | Lat Deg = 40
  | Lat Min = 6
  | Lat Sec = 9
  | Lat Dir = N
  | Long Deg = 84
  | Long Min = 37
  | Long Sec = 41
  | Long Dir = W
  | Area = 50,000 acres<br>20,230 hectares
  | Date = [[January 1]], [[1900]]
  | Visitation Num = 654,321
  | Visitation Year = 2005
  | Governing Body = [[National Park Service]]
  | IUCN = II
}}
<!-- END Protected Areas Infobox -->

After any proposals to modify the content of the infobox are settled, use the Template:Protected Area Table for articles about protected areas in or related to the United States.

As there was near unanimous support for the move to a template format during the initial phase of gauging interest on the talk page, we shall take this proposal as accepted. If you have any particular concerns with use of a template, or want to help work updating the encoding, please comment at: Template talk:Protected Area Table. Note that Proposal #2 is for a modified template with similar content.

The template has been added to the following articles for testing purposes:

Ia, ??? (unable to find a separate article for this IUCN category)
Ib, Bob Marshall Wilderness
II, Mesa Verde National Park
III, El Morro National Monument
IV, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge
V, New Jersey Pinelands National Reserve
VI, Shoshone National Forest

Note that some fields are optional. For example, if you do not have a source for visitation numbers for an area, if you leave that field blank, then no row will display for visitation.

Proposal #1: Provide for seconds in the coordinates row[edit]

Program the new template to allow for degrees-minutes-seconds in the coordinates row. If possible, make the display of the seconds optional. If the programming is too difficult to make them optional, then for existing articles that only cite degrees and minutes enter a "0" in the seconds fields.

Comments (Prop. #1)[edit]

I have been working on quite a few small sites where the seconds are needed. An example of the change to existing reference (Yellowstone National Park) would be 44°40′N 110°28′W / 44.667°N 110.467°W / 44.667; -110.467 vs. 44°40′0″N 110°28′0″W / 44.66667°N 110.46667°W / 44.66667; -110.46667.  Eoghanacht ^talk 19:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes (Prop. #1)[edit]

Support  Eoghanacht ^talk 19:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support MONGO 23:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Papayoung ☯ 15:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal #2: Redesigned Template[edit]

Adopt a newly programmed Template:Infobox protected area, with a change in IUCN colors for visual clarity.

IUCN	Current	Proposed
Ia	#D06030	#E7AF97
Ib	#B5954B	#DACAA5
II	#9BCB65	#CDE5B2
III	#80FF80	#BFFFBF
IV	#65CB9B	#B2E5CD
V	#4B95B5	#A5CADA
VI	#3060D0	#A8BDEC

In a nutshell, this template is different from the existing one in that it:

Is based on existing Wikipedia Infobox styles;
Rearranges some of the data;
Gracefully allows any parameter to be omitted; and
Requires fewer under-the-hood template calls.

This demonstration version is fully functional as {{Infobox_protected_area}}. Please see its talk page for an example and usage instructions. There is also a full-context example; you can test it with any of the other IUCN categories if you wish. Another test is at St. Clement's Island, a state park. The Notes and Explanations section goes into detail about some of how it's built.

Comments (Prop. #2)[edit]

I don't see this proposal as being in competition with Eoghanacht's existing template, but I couldn't demonstrate my suggestions without building something new. It's different enough that I'm putting it up as a separate proposal, though any of these ideas could be combined easily enough. I will refrain from voting because it's my proposal. —Papayoung ☯ 01:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the work. Some thoughts:

I think it is fine to eliminate the "designation" field and merge the designation with the header name.
But from the existing infobox I did like the background color for the name row -- if this is too difficult, perhaps moving the IUCN category row immediately after the name (and just above the map, rather than just below it) is better -- and center the IUCN row rather than left justify.
- I can live with that; it differs from the standard Infobox layout, but it will look fine. —Papayoung ☯
When I tested the various IUCN display colors for this template they seem to be pastel versions of the ones currently being used. But the current colors are already "registered" in the color listing in Wikipedia:Infobox.
- I see that. I suppose I have to make that a separate proposal, then? (Please guide me.) The dark colors currently registered just do not work with black text, because there's not enough contrast. Visually impaired users or those with dark monitors will find that information unusable. —Papayoung ☯
  - I think one just needs to add the colors to the list. I put a comparison chart above. None of the new colors is claimed. These colors can be tweaked later on anyway, independent of inputing the content into articles (part of the beauty of using a template).  Eoghanacht ^talk 19:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The "date established" field is programmed to accept a year and automatically wikify it -- but it causes problems if you input the day and month. But I often like to put the exact date. Is there a way to enter the date established as three fields (year, month, day) and if the day and month fields are blank they won't show?
- There is a way, though it further complicates the template and its use in articles. I suggest we go back to a simple date field; it's easy enough to wikify a date, and robots often come along and do it anyway. —Papayoung ☯
Also, I would name the template: "Protected areas infobox" (note the plural "areas").  Eoghanacht ^talk 16:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree here, because with only two exceptions every listed Infobox template is singular. And the box applies to a single protected area. —Papayoung ☯
  - okay  Eoghanacht ^talk 19:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment: Can the optional image caption be centered?  Eoghanacht ^talk 13:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty attached to the left-justification; it matches the current Wikipedia style for captions. Centered text would also create too many ragged margins. —Papayoung ☯

Here are some thoughts of mine:

Exact date for the "date established" is quite necessary, but it looks like it's there in the sample template on this page. Did I miss something?
- Unless there's a sudden debate, I'll make Eoghanacht's friendly amendments to this proposal today. One of them will be that dates can be entered in whatever format you choose. —Papayoung ☯
The PNG locator image is 280 pixels and the space provided in the table is 288 pixels. It looks blurry since Wikipedia is manipulating the image befor sending it. The template should provide for exactly the width of the standard US locator maps.
- I didn't look at the original images, assumed they were larger. For now I'll reduce the image size (and corresponding Infobox width) so Wikimedia doesn't resize them. It wold be great to go back and create new, vector-based (and therefore scalable) locator maps. Is there a definitive list somewhere of the locators that have been made? —Papayoung ☯
I was sort of confused about why the designation was not part of the header in the existing infoboxes. Not knowing why, I made my original template the same way. I agree that the designation field can be merged with the title, since that would be exactly the proper title of the protected area anyway. Mrendo 19:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the changes discussed above: moved the IUCN category above the image, and de-auto-wikied the establishment date. —Papayoung ☯ 16:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I like it now, but I'll wait for others to comment before voting. I was not involved in making the original images, and don't know how to edit the vector format, so perhaps that should be a separate proposal -- in order to debate that one issue. It looks good, though, except perhaps I wonder if the peach color for Canada and Mexico somehow competes with the IUCN colors. One other thought, if the images are vector based, perhaps we could consider narrowing the box. The taxobox is only about 250px (example) -- a narrower box would be helpful in allowing space for left-justified images near the top of a protected area article (example: Ford's Theatre).  Eoghanacht ^talk 13:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this before. I could be convinced, though I prefer to keep it at the "standard" width for Infoboxes (300px) for consistency's sake, and on an 800-pixels-wide monitor the Infobox and a left-floated picture don't fit even at the narrower box width anyway. It's also true that if we make it narrower we'll need to say "IUCN cat. VI" rather than "IUCN category VI", to keep that line from wrapping. But this is minor; like I say, I can be convinced if you feel strongly. I'm also very happy with how this is all coming together. Thanks, —Papayoung ☯ 23:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are doing a great job...the new proposed template as shown with the new map is a tremendous addition and really brings the articles to life. I added subheadings to my version of Shoshone National Forest and am going to try before I take a two week vacation, to greatly expand the article text. Feel free to implement the new infobox with scalable map and new color scheme for top border into my origial article. I am hoping we can all work collaboartively to bring it to featured article status to show off you guys excellent alterations to the infobox and this project.--MONGO 17:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes (Prop. #2)[edit]

Support (noting that which image to put into the new template is a separate proposal)  Eoghanacht ^talk 15:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support change to proposed color scheme...darker colors blend out text too much.--MONGO 17:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support (I realize I said earlier I wouldn't vote on this, but looking at this process I see it's more appropriate to do so.) —Papayoung ☯ 15:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal #3: Make vector based maps the standard[edit]

Use a new scaleable, vector based map (see example below by Papayoung).

Sized at:	Current	Proposed
288px
280px
240px
150px

Comments (Prop. #3)[edit]

I like how the new example is clear and scaleable. I am not sure about the particular colors, yet (but I could be convinced).  Eoghanacht ^talk 15:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I took the colors from the current map style guidelines (such as they are) put forth by the WikiProject Maps group. I also wasn't sure about the colors, but there are some professional cartographers working over there, and the more I use them the better I like them. Another advantage of Proposal #4 (below) is that if most locators are using one base map image, that image can be changed to suit the mapping group's guidelines as they come out. —Papayoung ☯ 17:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What other maps are available? There are several U.S. federal gov't protected areas in the Caribbean, and a few in Pacific insular areas. -- Eoghanacht ^talk 12:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes (Prop. #3)[edit]

Support new proposed scalable map as replacement.--MONGO 17:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Papayoung ☯ 15:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Eoghanacht ^talk 14:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal #4: Add Automatic Locator Function to Infobox Template[edit]

Add two parameters to the Infobox template, named locator_x and locator_y, which will automatically add a 10-pixel locator dot over the image. the parameters are the number of pixels from the left and top, respectively, to offset the locator dot.

For examples of how it looks and and is used, see the Infobox in Proposal #2, above, and the talk page for {{Infobox_protected_area}}. This proposal can be combined with any of the other proposals on this page.

Comments (Prop. #4)[edit]

Separating my opinons out from the proposal itself, I think the advantages are that only one image is ever required for any locator area (like the US, in the example), users can make locators without having to make maps, and it makes it easy to be consistent. Disadvantages include adding one more template call from within this template (a technical issue), and making the template declaration two lines longer. —Papayoung ☯ 16:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too Cool -- it will make image making and maintaining much easier, and allow modifications to a single image once, that will then display everywhere it is used. 10 pix may be too big (how does 7 or 8 pix look?), but it looks like the sizing of the dot is governed by the template, rather than the parameters in each article, so it too can be easily modified. One technical glitch: for this first test it looks like the background of the dot is grey, rather than transparent.  Eoghanacht ^talk 17:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Your browser doesn't support transparent PNG files, or at least not in this context. Would you be willing to tell me the browser, version and platform you're using, so I can try to test it? Thanks, —Papayoung ☯ 17:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - MS Internet Explorer 6.0, on a Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition Version: 5.1.2600, service pack 2.
    - I need further clarification on this, but is sounds awesome.--MONGO 17:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears Internet Explorer just doesn't do transparent PNGs. I know there's a fix you can enable from within a Web page, but Wikimedia does not seem to be employing it (yet). I'm going to look into that. In the meantime, I've replaced the SVG (which turns into a PNG) file with a GIF. —Papayoung ☯ 02:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the dot size, I tried it smaller and to my eye it just disappeared too much. As before, I can be convinced if you feel strongly about it. Please comment if you do. Thanks, —Papayoung ☯ 02:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add dots of different sizes to test image US Locator No Labels.svg? How about right up the middle: 10 pix in Texas, 9 in Oklahoma, 8 Kansas, 7 Nebraska, 6 South Dakota, and 5 in N. Dakota?  Eoghanacht ^talk 12:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Here you go; left to right because they're spaced further apart, ranging from ten pixels to six. I still feel bigger is better, because it's immediately visible. Finer locating is supported by the coordinates link immediately below the map in the table. —Papayoung ☯ 15:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about 8 pix?  Eoghanacht ^talk 21:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I can live with that. —Papayoung ☯ 03:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One thought: how would one incorporate the dot into a map for a non-central area, such as Blue Ridge Parkway or Appalachian Trail? I presume one would need to make a custom map for that one article and just leave the X and Y fields blank?  Eoghanacht ^talk 21:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, in that case I agree a custom map would be better. I would like to see most maps in this project keep a similar style, and will continue to offer to make maps on request. And yes, to omit the locator dot you just leave the x and y fields empty. —Papayoung ☯ 03:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes (Prop. #4)[edit]

Support —Papayoung ☯ 15:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support with an 8 pixels dot  Eoghanacht ^talk 14:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the discussion and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.