Template talk:Mossman Gorge trails

Templates for approval

Swept in from the pub

Listed templates for approval:

• Template:Kulki
• Template:Madja
• Template:Dubuji
• Template:Jindalba
• Template:Mossman Gorge trails

Title. It's unlikely that these templates will be used by anyone (including myself), but all it does is it transcludes the maplines for certain boardwalks in the Daintree Rainforest article. I may add some more templates to this list. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

So by "transclude", do you mean that these templates are needed to show these trails on the map? If not, what do you mean, and if so, why are they unlikely to be used? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, these are needed to show the trails on the map. You could put all that code into the Daintree Rainforest article and it will still work, but it takes up extra bytes, take longer for the page to load and chew up some traveller's data which can easily be prevented.

And when I mean, "it's unlikely that these templates will be used by anyone", I meant it will be used on any other page apart from the Daintree Rainforest article. Apologies if I weren't clear enough before :-(. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense, and of course if the templates are needed for that purpose, they should be used. Therefore, I support their existence. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

There's no need to create templates for this. Just create subpages (e.g. Daintree Rainforest/Jindalba) and transclude those using the ':' prefix ( { {:Daintree Rainforest/Jindalba } } ). -- andree 06:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to do that, merely because that would affect {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}, which would then affect the number of pages shown in Destinations (which would add five extra pages to that list) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with User:Andree.sk that this seems like the wrong use for a template – my understanding is that templates are mainly intended for use across multiple pages. Why not just include this content directly in the articles? —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I too agree with Andree that these don't deserve to be templates of their own. For GPX files, the standard is to have "article/GPX" redirect to "Template:GPX/name", which contains the GPX file. I would argue we handle GeoJSON data like in these. It doesn't seem difficult to convert GeoJSON to GPX from a glance and they achieve the exact same, so that's probably the most straight-forward solution here.

(Example: Trans-Siberian Railway calls from {{GPX/Trans-Siberian Railway}})

Alternatively, treat these 'templates' the way we treat other GeoJSON data (such as dynamic district maps), and upload them to Commons and transclude them from there.

(Example: Vienna's districts on its dynamic map are transcluded from Commons:Data:Vienna Districts.map.)

RE @Mx. Granger:: It simply becomes too long if you consistently include all GPX or GeoJSON data inside of a template within the article itself. It clutters up the wikitext source, which might intimidate new or inexperienced editors. Wauteurz (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@SHB2000: mw says that {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} won't be increased unless there's some internal wikilink... So if you only have the <maplink> coordinates inside, it would be OK from this POV. You can at least try....  :) -- andree 07:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

True, but I question the need for that when it's already stored in another page. Plus, in search bars, a reader looking for the title wouldn't want to land on that page – isn't that why we restrict such mainspace redirects like vfd or ttcf? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't vouch about that, so you/I would have to try what happens. Perhaps page that isn't counted as 'page' won't even show up in the results, or we could somehow hide it in the future (see phab)

Tracked in Phabricator ^(?)
Task T24251

. Maybe we could add some \<nowiki\>/... magic to do redirects, if someone visits it by accident :) It wouldn't be a new invention, e.g. templates have docs separate and transclude them ({{rint}}). Another option could be using File: namespace, but here I don't know if it can be used for transclusion. Maybe we could create a new namespace then... In the end, I have principal issue with using Template: namespace, as templates are used for templating things that are used multiple times. Not to split pages into smaller pieces... If people start uploading stuff to Template:, "just" because they don't agree with the commons license, it will become a huge mess. But it's all just my opinions/suggestions - I'm no admin here, someone else has to deal with the mess if this passes anyway :-P -- andree 08:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this sort of data wanted on Commons, so that all the wikis can use it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe so. Commons:Commons:File types#Data files says that map data can be included there in the "Data" namespace. I don't know enough to say whether this would be a relevant use case. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

SHB2000, have you considered the possibility to change the syntax of the content in order to use the Template:GPX approach?

If you want to use the same "LineString" or "trkseg" (as you wanna call it) in more than one article, is enough to copy and paste that portion in the relevant GPX. That said, is not common the use of a same route in more than one article. --Andyrom75 (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how to do that though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

A quick search gives me this GitHub tool as one way to convert GeoJSON to GPX. There's others too, but they mostly require having an actual GeoJSON file as opposed to just the code. Paste the GeoJSON in, remove the <maplink> parameter from the front and back, and you might want to have every trkpt on a separate line, but it does the trick. Wauteurz (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

True. However, Commons only accepts public domain content (which I do not wish to release these under the CC0 1.0 license). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Eh? Creative Commons Copyleft != public domain. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Well... over here, as per the Terms of Use, the maplines I release are under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license, not in the public domain. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Which is a very standard license for Commons. What's the issue? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It's the standard license for Commons, but all edits in their data namespace has to be under the public domain and I prefer to be attributed for my work. Try using edit mode in c:Data:Interstate 25.map or c:Data:Interstate 5.map.

Plus, no one here has managed to figure out on how to get a mapline from Commons and make it work here, which makes it pointless. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)