User talk:VerruckteDan/Geobox Protected Area

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Flickr

I am went through all 1535ish photos of Pennsylvania state parks on flickr and found some that could be used. I moved them on up. You may want to double check for any that I missed. Be prepared to look at lots and lots of birds. Dincher 16:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we have now gone through all the articles and checked for pics for the info boxes. Those crossed off should all have the new box. Those not crossed off do not have a pic. I haven't added townships, that resource isn't available to me at work. Might want to double check what I have done. Dincher 01:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dincher and Dan, for all of your hard work. I have some questions and comments. I guess the most obvious question is: do we want to convert articles to Geobox format that do not have a picture? Also what else do we want to check? We have been adding townships to articles (mine are based on the PennDOT county maps - every article should have the correct county map link already in it). Where a park is in multiple counties and is in many townships, I have added the twps to the article, but so far not always to the Geobox (and I still have to add them for a few long parks like Bucktail or Delaware Canal or Laurel Ridge or the 4th long one). What do you guys think? Should all twps be in the Geoboxes too? Finally, I have been trying to check that all articles have a similar first sentence that is something like "Allegheny Islands State Park is a Pennsylvania State Park on 43 acres (0.17 km2) in Harmar Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania in the United States." The convert template is another update I have been making sure is in articles too. What else should we check / add? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I added townships and boroughs along Bucktail State Park Natural Area - the twps and boros paragraph is longer than the intro paragraph - does it seem OK? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This paragraph is now entitled, "Course". I think that this should be good. Dincher 04:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and great call - I will work on courses for the other three long linear parks, plus see below. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dincher's answers to Ruhrfisch's questions and statements.

Do we want to convert articles to Geobox format that do not have a picture? Might as well. I won't hurt anything. Will it?
Also what else do we want to check? I am puzzling over whether or not to have to locator dot on the "long parks". They are so long that I don't think the locator dor is needed. Bucktail State Park Natural Area does not have a dot, Lehigh Gorge State Park does, Delaware Canal State Park has not been converted, I am not sure about Laurel Ridge State Park.
Townships. I am all for including them and including the park in the township article. I can work on the townships from home, but not work.
Opening sentence. Easy to do, needs to be done.

Convert template. Easy to do, might as well be done for accuracy and "correctness". Dincher 04:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan's answer's

  • I'm in favor if converting them all to the Geobox.
  • I agree that the locator dots on the the "long parks" is probably not needed.
  • Yes to including the townships/boroughs. I also like the idea of adding the parks to the township pages (even if it greatly expands the workload)
  • I like the idea of checking the intros for a consistent style.
  • And finally, I agree with using the conversion template. But on this point I want to bring up an idea. We encountered the transclusion limit on the List of Pennsylvania state parks due to the size of Template:Convert, while its a great template, its very large since it tries to incorporate as many conversion types imaginable, hence the problem with reaching the transclusion limit. While I don't think any of the individual parks will come near the limit, would it be better future planning to use the unit specific conversion templates (ie. Template:Ft to m Template:Mi to km, etc) due to their smaller size? VerruckteDan 13:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys! I added the location coordinates and elevations for Emporium and Lock Haven (west and east ends of Bucktail) using the highest and lowest elevation slots. What do you think of that as a solution? It will also work for Lehigh Gorge and Delaware Canal as rivers flow downhill, I may just fudge it for Laurel (just put the higher end as highest and the lower end as lowest). It ignores the chance that the actual highest or lowest point in the park is elsewhere, but the labels hopefully make it clear. This way there is coordinate and elevation info without the somewhat confusing dot on the park specific map.
I also like adding parks to municipality pages (city, twp, borough). I think Dincher has added them to many of the county pages already, but can check.
To summarize then
  • We will convert all parks to the Geobox
  • Townships, boroughs and cities will be included in the articles and where practical in the Geoboxes
  • Make intros consistent as needed (I somehow left Harmar Twp out of my sample above initially)
  • I am OK with trying the specific conversion templates - may swithc to them in Larrys Creek and White Deer Hole Creek too as they both use generic convert now and are slow loading.
Anythings else? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the above sounds fine. I switched the left column titles on Bucktail. Now it just says "Western Terminus" instead of "Highest Point Western Terminus" I figure this is more accurate as it doesn't imply that the termini are the highest and lowest points of the park. VerruckteDan 15:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, that makes more sense. I like how flexibe the Geobox format is - now if only I knew how to use it all. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the township articles do we place the info about the state parks? Dincher 19:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Cummings Township, Pennsylvania, home to two state parks, for my idea. I added the info to the Geography section, as every PA municipality article should have one. Sound OK? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Dincher 23:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make sense to have a more detailed checklist (or several checklists)? This started as a list for the Geobox, but now a strike also means (presumably) that municiplaities (mostly townships) are included in the article, intro is consistent, and we could also track if there is a photo in the article, what conversion template(s) are used, if the park is listed in the township (or city etc) article, and in the county article, and anything else? We could also just have strike be Geobox, asterisk be no photo, etc. (add characters after the parks as needed). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The new detailed chart is great! For now the strikethroughs mean new geobox with picture and maybe municipalities. The new chart will clear all of this up. Good night. Dincher 04:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you like it. I changed from yes and no to  Done. Any park crossed off on the top list, I marked as having a Geobox. I guess they also have a picture in the Geobox. I'm not gonna check on anymore of it right now, its time to sleep. VerruckteDan 04:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos on the chart and thanks very much! I will work on checking and updating articles that already have Geoboxes first (and did Upper Pine Bottom for practice). Thanks again, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 12 townships, 4 boroughs, and 1 city along Bucktail State Park Natural Area (including the borough and city at the ends). Do you think all 17 should be in the Geobox? My feeling is no (too much), but I wanted to know what you think. I assume the other long linear parks will be the same (either only in the article and not in the Geobox, or put them all in the Geobox). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ruhrfisch. Let's keep them in the articles, in the course paragraph. No need to fill the geobox. Dincher 20:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. VerruckteDan 01:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will work on the other long park townships. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice Dan - I asked them about it yesterday. They have already fixed Bucktail, Allegheny Islands, Laurel Ridge, and Buchanan's Birthplace SPs. Yesterday I asked about Boyd Big Tree (forgot before) as well as Ibberson, Erie Bluffs, Varden, White Clay Creek Preserve, and venturing a bit further afield, White Clay Creek SP (in DE). Have not yet heard back on those. Will update the coords and elevation on Erie Bluffs when I do. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All those are in GNIS now, found Poe Paddy coords are in Mifflin County (not Centre), will update it when it is done). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State Forests question

I switched Loyalsock State Forest over, found out it is not in GNIS yet (so I used the Wyoming SF coords and elevation). Dan and I had discussion of this a while ago, but I wondered about using the US or PA map for the locator dot? Most PA State Forests are locating in several counties (even Tiadaghton SF in just Lycoming County is in a county bigger than Rhode Island and one dot does not show all its lands even on the PA map).

So I have several questions: If we use just a dot, do we use the US or PA map (we have been using the US map in the infoboxes because the dot shows the area in PA)? Do we want to try to make individual maps (similar to Dincher's Bucktail State Park Map)? We could also ask if someone could make them for us, but I could try. We could then put the coordinators in for the SF headquarters (and elevation). What do you think? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC) PS I let GNIS know about the Loyalsock and William Penn State Forests changes. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I favor making unique Pennsylvania maps for the state forests. The USA locator map really does very little for me. I could work on them too. Dincher 16:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can try it for Loyalsock SF, have some other maps to work on too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, if we can get nice looking PA maps with the Forests, shown, I thing that'd be best. VerruckteDan 17:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rothrock State Forest already has a map. What's your opinions? Dincher 19:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the geobox with the map image, but the image is at the bottom of the box and the locator map is at the top. Why? Dincher 20:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess I fixed it. I don't know how. Dincher 20:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I fixed it - there is a map first parameter down in hte map section, if it is "yes" the map is first, if blank, the picture is first. See this diff for the change I made [1] to make the map last. While I like the maps already in the article for their detail, I do not think that they are very useful as locator maps. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, their function as a locator map is not the best, but what if it is used in coordination with the PA locator map? See Bald Eagle State Forest for an example. VerruckteDan 20:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dual maps look good. The local map does show the location of the forest within Pennsylvania, it's in the lower right hand corner and blends in too much with the map, maybe this could be tweaked. Dincher 21:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My thought was to eventually make a locator map for each PA state forest based on the PA locator map but with the forest area shown in red, similar to the little inset maps in the corners of the dozen or so maps from Rcc105. This would be similar to the red line maps Dincher made for Bucktail SP, Delaware Canal SP, etc. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would we go with a filled red area or an outlined area? I think outlined works best since the entire area is not state forest. Dincher 21:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I added Image:Loyalsock State Forest Locator Map.PNG to the article. At the scale the map shows up at, the forest lands pretty much have to be filled, but I left the "holes" as much as possible. What do you think? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I redid the map for Loyalsock SF to remove Worlds End SP. I just put up Tioga SF and it does not include Leonard Harrison and Colton Point SPs. I am working on Delaware SF and it will not include Promised Land SP - does this seem OK? I am also thinking of making a map combing all 20 when I am done for the List of PA SFs, plus show the districts too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the state parks should be recognized in some way. They are protected areas. Without recognition a viewer may assume that they are simply developed or private lands. Perhaps mark them with a different color. I really don't know for sure. Then again the absence or presence of a state park may not really be noticed. For example Prouty Place State Park. Dincher 20:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem as I see it is that if you show one state park in a state forest district then you should show them all. For some (William Penn) there would be way more state parks than state forest land. I just did the new Delaware SF map and it has the very large Delaware Gap NRA, plus a fair number of state parks, plus all the State Game Lands (also protected land in a way). I think the state forest maps are more to give you an idea of the extent and rough location of the forest. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further review, I agree with Ruhrfisch. The maps are just as they should be. Dincher 14:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, what about articles that have the maps from Rcc105 (like Tiadaghton SF)? Should they have a new locator map too? I am working on a Forbes SF map now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. All the state forest articles should have the same map. Dincher 03:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will work on the articles with no map at all first, then the rest. Working on Gallitzin now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GNIS Missing

Ruhrfisch, Nescopeck State Park is missing from the GNIS database. VerruckteDan 15:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Dan, I will let them know that one too - they will have a full mailbox Tuesday when they get back from Labor Day Weekend: Loyalsock SF, William Penn SF, Poe Paddy and Nescopeck SPs. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nescopeck SP and Poe Paddy SPs are updated with the latest GNIS coords and elevations, as are Loyalsock, William Penn (formerly Valley Forge), and Clear Creek (formerly Kittanning) SFs. I think I have made all the changes for the new names too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina

Do you care to add List of North Carolina state parks to the Delaware and Pennsylvania charts. I have already converted two. Lumber River State Park and Lake Norman State Park. Dincher 23:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NC List added. VerruckteDan 02:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dan! Dincher 20:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split page

I am having problems with this page, not the talk page, it takes a long, long time to load. And is generally a problem. Could it be split up?Dincher 21:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I guess it works now. Dincher 23:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GNIS References

After adding the GNIS reference to Black Mo, I figure I'll start adding them to other state parks as well. I wanted to pose a question or you and Ruhrfisch. What style of citation should I use? I based the Black Mo reference off of the example shown on the Template:Gnis#Template:Gnis3 page: 

{{cite web 
| url={{Gnis3|112837}} 
| title=Wheeler Lake 
| work=[[Geographic Names Information System]] 
| publisher=[[United States Geological Survey]] 
| accessdate=2006-05-02 }}

which produces:

"Wheeler Lake". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey. Retrieved 2006-05-02.

Ruhrfisch used the following style on Snyder Middleswarth Natural Area: 

{{cite web
| last = Geographic Names Information System 
| first = [[United States Geological Survey]]
| date = [[October 1]], [[1989]] 
| url ={{Gnis3|1212570}}
| title ="Geographic Names Information System Feature Detail Report: Snyder Middleswarth Natural Area"
| accessdate =2007-12-11}}

which produces

Geographic Names Information System, United States Geological Survey (October 1, 1989). ""Geographic Names Information System Feature Detail Report: Snyder Middleswarth Natural Area"". Retrieved 2007-12-11. {{cite web}}: Check |first= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

I like using the Gnis3 template for its ease of use. I also prefer the shorter name from the first example, I don't think its necessary to list "Geographic Names Information System Feature Detail Report" since GNIS is already listed under the parameter "work". Finally, I do like having the date that the entry appeared in the GNIS database. So here's my proposed reference structure: 

{{cite web 
| url={{Gnis3|112837}} 
| title=Wheeler Lake 
| date = [[September 4]], [[1980]] 
| work=[[Geographic Names Information System]] 
| publisher=[[United States Geological Survey]] 
| accessdate=2006-05-02 }}

which produces

"Wheeler Lake". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey. September 4, 1980. Retrieved 2006-05-02. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

What are your thoughts on this? VerruckteDan (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Dan, I am fine with your final option (the one right above this) and will work on switching over articles to this format (assuming it is also OK with Dincher). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go for it. I am cool with whatever as long as they are accurate and referenced I will not sweat it and leave it to you guys. Dincher (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I actually have been trying very hard to put titles in quotation marks in {{cite web}}, so here is what I prefer: 

{{cite web 
| url={{Gnis3|112837}} 
| title="Wheeler Lake" 
| date = [[September 4]] [[1980]] 
| work=[[Geographic Names Information System]] 
| publisher=[[United States Geological Survey]] 
| accessdate=2006-05-02 }}

which produces

""Wheeler Lake"". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey. September 4, 1980. Retrieved 2006-05-02. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Which is the same as before, plus "quotes" to help set off the title. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this conversation to Dan's state parks user page talk page. Dincher (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New column for GNIS refs so we can keep track. The GNIS site seems to be working for me now. Things are always iffy on the net at work. I will start from the bottom and work my way up. This should help us avoid any conflicts. Dincher (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convert template

I wanted to address this topic again. The {{Convert}} template has been extensively reworked to reduce its size and making it much very versatile in a variety of situations. Therefore, I'd like to suggest fully implementing it in PA state park articles. I've changed things over to convert at Allegheny Islands State Park as a demonstration. The template also has a parameter to allow the singular for proper grammar (allowing us to change to the original intro wording if desired: "Allegheny Islands State Park is a 43-acre (017 km2) Pennsylvania state park in....." Anyway, let me know what you think. VerruckteDan (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it works I have no problems with using it. It looks like it works to me. Dincher (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also OK with it. Dan you may be interested in the discussion on hectares at the Oil Creek State Park talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Archbald

What should we do about the latest additions to Archbald Pothole State Park? I would prefer to leave them out, but they are referenced. Dincher (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the names of the reference needed to be changed without question. The Electric City reference seems questionable to me in that it is just an opinion of a newspaper editor saying that sometimes sex occurs at the park. The other reference seems more reliable and refers to a wide range of problems the park is facing. I think the one sentence added should be reworked into a paragraph on these challenges and reference to Amarillo article. VerruckteDan (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the AP story in the Texas paper is a reliable source too. It has a fair amount of useful information on the history of the park (previous popularity, renovation 5 years ago, people throwing trash in, plus the whole sex thing). Perhaps the information could all be added as a "a variety of challenges face the park today" paragraph? Agree the Electric City ref is dubious. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I updated it - what do you think? Never thought this was a topic I'd be writing about here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care for the topic either. My concern with the refs is that they are both from 2002. EC is dubious. I will now look at the update. Dincher (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The changes look pretty good to me. Hopefully they'll be left alone. Dincher (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Much more balanced than the random sex comments. VerruckteDan (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - it took a while to figure out the best way to say it - still room for improvement, I'm sure. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I agree. I usually look for news on PA state parks. I will keep an eye out for development at Archbald Pothole. Dincher (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GNIS and Topozone

I heard back from GNIS and they have added Benjamin Rush and Lackawanna SPs to their daabase. They also changed the name on Delaware Canal SP (used to be listed under Roosevelt SP as that was the original name) and fixed the county for Big Spring SP. The coordinates for almost all of Delaware Canal are still missing though - I have asked on this again.

I am not sure if you realized this or not, but TopoZone has gone subscription only and the free service is pretty crappy now. TerraServer still shows the USGS topo maps, but seems slower to me and is missing the handy little red + sign. I am pretty sure the Penn State Library has all the PA USGS topo maps online, but have to look for them. My guess is that USGS used TopoZone too - their response was much slower than usual and they mentioned that their map system was temporarily unavailable in an intermediate email. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the efforts in this area. Topozone is now on my list. Dincher (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woohoo - the nice folks at GNIS told me about a new service at http://mapper.acme.com/ - has the topo maps, aerial photos, regular map, all integrated. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:VerruckteDan/Geobox_Protected_Area"