Wiki map update?

[QDP2012]

Good morning admins,

Is it possible to change the map (found on page Category:Collaboration and formerly on Collaboration Gateway) from a clickable-region map to a clickable-state map, so that clicking on a state-shape will navigate to the state's category?

This would allow map-based navigation in the Wiki similar to the current navigation option in the RRDB.

Just a thought.

Thanks,

 

[ka3jjz]

If someone could write the code for it....Mike

 

[QDP2012]

I will work on it. I just noticed that it was being driven by the template Template:Collaboration Category Map. I had missed that before, and thought maybe it was custom-code that we couldn't modify.

Thanks,

 

[ka3jjz]

Really dumb question: why?

The list of US states is right on the very first page of the collaboration page...just wonderin'

Mike

 

[QDP2012]

The Template:Collaboration Category Map has been updated with state-links. This is one option unless/until someone finds a way to implement a clickable map that behaves the same way as the one in the DB.

Really dumb question: why?

The list of US states is right on the very first page of the collaboration page...just wonderin'

I thought about that, too. I guess the same question could have been asked when the map was there before, when it could have been replaced with a short list of the eight regional categories, even though it helped illustrate which states belonged in which region.

Some other thoughts regarding general web-development that might apply here:

• Some people prefer graphics instead of text-only, and think graphics increases overall vistor-interest.
• Some people navigate a clean-graphic more quickly than they read and navigate word-lists, like people with dyslexia.
• Some people who prefer to navigate from one locale to an adjacent one might find a map more intuitive instead of searching for the target in an alphabetized list.
• Sometimes a graphic illustration can present the same information, including links, but do so while using less space on a webpage, thereby reducing the page-scrolling that visitors must do to find information.
• I'm guessing that the original map's creator found it useful or had been asked by someone else to implement it.

...just some thoughts.

The updated map is available if interested. I tried it as a learning experience, and because it seemed better to update an existing tool than to lose it altogether. I don't know the pertinent history about the map's initial creation, and its perceived value at that time. The question of keeping or not keeping the map seems like an admin question above-my-paygrade. It's no problem for me either way.

Hope this helps,

 

[ka3jjz]

OK if you're trying to replicate the db function somewhat, then the Canadian and US mapping shouldn't be on the same page. It's not that way in the database, so it shouldn't be this way here, either.

Fortunately that should be easy - but you'll need Bob to add a link for the Canadian map to the main Collaboration page, as that page is restricted to admins only (for obvious reasons)

Looks good otherwise...Mike

[edit] Another thought - if we are trying to make this more database-like, the map should be moved to the first collaboration category page, and the table(s) would be underneath it. We also need a home for the US region categories, so that's another table that will be needed. Again that's similar to what the database does

I'll start on that as soon as I'm finished mapping all these blasted states with the FTO, RID, ect. categories;.Even using templates for the text, it's taking entirely too long to finish this...

 

[QDP2012]

OK if you're trying to replicate the db function somewhat, then the Canadian and US mapping shouldn't be on the same page. It's not that way in the database, so it shouldn't be this way here, either.

Fortunately that should be easy - but you'll need Bob to add a link for the Canadian map to the main Collaboration page, as that page is restricted to admins only (for obvious reasons)

Looks good otherwise...Mike

Since the Wiki doesn't have separate "front-doors" for different countries (like the DB does), it probably is ok to leave the map as a combined US/CA map. From what I can tell, there is only one image file showing the combined map, not two separate ones placed in-tandem. Splitting the countries graphically into separate files would seem to involve some graphic editing that might be more labor than it's worth.

If he chooses to replace the current image file with another, I will try to adjust the coordinates for each link to correspond correctly. As the next step, I am investigating html's usemap feature to see what's involved in making each state's shape become clickable. (Wikipedia has examples of this correctly working inside its Wiki environment.)

Thanks.

[edit] Another thought - if we are trying to make this more database-like, the map should be moved to the first collaboration category page, and the table(s) would be underneath it. We also need a home for the US region categories, so that's another table that will be needed. Again that's similar to what the database does

Now that the state-categories are done, I'm not seeing a reason to keep the regional categories for the US. We can make each of the states a child under US. From what I can tell, the DB does not have regional categories. It seems to show each state within the US, and each province within CA, without intermediate regions (pacific, intermountain, midwest..., etc.). Am I missing something...?

Just a thought.

Edit: Do you know if html's "form" function and/or JavaScript can be used inside the Wiki? If so, we could collapse the long lists (like states, etc.) into nice pull-down boxes, similar to the DB.

Edit2: If W9BU chooses to use different graphics-files in an effort to separate US from CA, maybe he can get the exact same US and CA country map files that are used in the DB. That might give a more unified appearance to the whole thing. ...just a thought.

 

[QDP2012]

Edit: Do you know if html's "form" function and/or JavaScript can be used inside the Wiki? If so, we could collapse the long lists (like states, etc.) into nice pull-down boxes, similar to the DB.

From this Help:HTML in wikitext reference, it seems that html's "form" feature and its "usemap" feature are not available inside the Wiki. But, Wikipedia seems to use the "imagemap" feature in this page Wikipedia:Image map. At the moment, none seem to work here. Of course, it might be user-error on my part.

 

[QDP2012]

I'll start on that as soon as I'm finished mapping all these blasted states with the FTO, RID, ect. categories;.Even using templates for the text, it's taking entirely too long to finish this...

After playing with the StateCategory template, and getting it to dynamically assign the individual page's category, I wonder, would it make your efforts easier if the templates (TrunkSystem, TrunkInfo, RIDText, and FTOText) similarly drove the individual page's categories also? That way you would only call the template from the individual article, and would not need to assign categories manually. (I would've suggested this sooner, but I'm still learning about the capabilities of Wiki templates.)


I might be wrong, but I think the categories might become dynamically-driven, if these two lines were added to the bottom of the templates (respectively):

[[Category:{{{State}}}]] 
[[Category:Trunked Radio Systems]]

[[Category:{{{State}}}]] 
[[Category:Trunking Information]]

[[Category:{{{State}}}]] 
[[Category:RID/UID Lists]]

[[Category:{{{State}}}]] 
[[Category:FTOs]]

and then, for example, Category:Illinois Trunked Radio Systems code could be:

{{TrunkSystem
|State=Illinois}}

instead of

{{TrunkSystem
|State=Illinois}}

[[Category:Illinois]]
[[Category:Trunked Radio Systems]]

Just a thought. Let me know whether you want to continue as you have been or whether you want to make a change to the template, and I will try to help implement whichever one you prefer.

Hope this helps,

 

[ka3jjz]

Actually the Collaboration Gateway does have different 'doors' (although not explicitly set up like that) for the different regions. It could be set up that way - all that would need to happen would be to copy the state/province tables, one per page, into separate pages (not all together as they are now), and link to these individual tables in the Gateway. That would replicate that functionality.

I am pretty sure - I'm not entirely certain - that the extensions are Javascript. You might want to check with the Chief on this. I know I've seen other wikis that have implemented Javascript as part of their environment

AFAIK you are right - the database doesn't group anything by US region - just by state. I think we could remove the US region links and not damage too much.

As to the templates - boy I wish I had thought of that earlier! That's a neat idea. I'm pretty far down the list of states - I stopped at Rhode Island. I'm quickly running out of free time so anything you can do to simplify this mess would be helpful. (Don't forget about the UnkTalkgroups template as well). The only problem is that we would have to go and add the State token to every article - wow would that be a lot of work!

Mike

 

[AK9R]

AFAIK you are right - the database doesn't group anything by US region - just by state. I think we could remove the US region links and not damage too much.

I inherited the regions from my predecessor . I'm not bound to them. Organizing the collaboration pages by state and dropping the regions sounds OK to me.

 

[QDP2012]

Actually the Collaboration Gateway does have different 'doors' (although not explicitly set up like that) for the different regions. It could be set up that way - all that would need to happen would be to copy the state/province tables, one per page, into separate pages (not all together as they are now), and link to these individual tables in the Gateway. That would replicate that functionality.

I am pretty sure - I'm not entirely certain - that the extensions are Javascript. You might want to check with the Chief on this. I know I've seen other wikis that have implemented Javascript as part of their environment

Separating the "doors" could be a good thing if it helps improve the users' experiences when navigating between the DB and the Wiki. I'm interested in learning more about the Wiki's Javascript options.

AFAIK you are right - the database doesn't group anything by US region - just by state. I think we could remove the US region links and not damage too much.

I am in-favor of removing the US regions, but would want to first verify that using Category:Collaboration as the states' parent is what we want to do. If not, then let me know what the parent should be. I will try to help with those updates.

As to the templates - boy I wish I had thought of that earlier! That's a neat idea. I'm pretty far down the list of states - I stopped at Rhode Island. I'm quickly running out of free time so anything you can do to simplify this mess would be helpful. (Don't forget about the UnkTalkgroups template as well). The only problem is that we would have to go and add the State token to every article - wow would that be a lot of work!

I think that a template change now will be easier in the long-run. If you are willing to pause your updates and hold where you are, I will update the templates and re-visit the existing pages to match them to the updated templates. Then we can finish things with less stress.

I'm going to go ahead and start updating the templates and existing pages, right now. I will periodically check here for your reply in case you have other guidance I should follow as well.

Hope this helps,

 

[ka3jjz]

I'm not sure we even need to consider having any parents remaining for the Region categories. The collaboration category was kinda intended to be a default, so dropping it for these Region categories shouldn't damage anything. Unlike articles, categories don't have to be bound to anything.

I'll hold up on my updates until I hear from you. I'm going to move on and see what other categories that have been created need some text to flesh them out. I think the Railroads stuff is pretty self explanatory, but there might be others that need some attention. And since they're unique, I can't necessarily use a template for them (unlike the FTOs, for example, since they can potentially distribute across all state and Canadian provinces...)

Thanks..Mike

 

[QDP2012]

The following templates and their dependent-pages have been updated:

• Template:FreqWiki
• Template:FTOText
• Template:RIDText
• Template:TrunkInfo
• Template:TrunkSystem
• Template:UnkTalkgroups

With the other categories, a template might be useful for setting parent-categories, even if we don't put any "boilerplate" text in the top of the template.

I'm going to give my keyboard a rest for a little-bit. Let me know if the above changes look ok, and if I missed anything.

Thanks,

 

[QDP2012]

The following templates and their dependent-pages have been updated:

• Template:FreqWiki
• Template:FTOText
• Template:RIDText
• Template:TrunkInfo
• Template:TrunkSystem
• Template:UnkTalkgroups

As far as I can tell, the above templates have been assigned to all of the appropriate subcategory-pages. I think this part is done.

Let me know if I missed something.

 

[ka3jjz]

Sounds fine. Hopefully I can finish up this part of the mapping maybe by Columbus Day since I'm off work that day. Mike

 

[QDP2012]

ok.

The US regional categories have been blanked and are ready for deletion.
Template:StateCategory has been updated to have "Category:Collaboration" as the states' parent.

Hope this helps,

 

[QDP2012]

It seems that templates which contain static categories are not applicable for grandchildren articles.

In case it matters, Template:FreqWiki, at this point, can be used only for children of "Wiki Frequencies", but not for grandchildren, etc. (like articles that belong to "Business Frequencies"). Adding the template to those pages breaks the "...Frequencies" hierarchies by automatically adding "Wiki Frequencies" to the pages which did not have it prior to the template being applied.

It might be good to create another template specifically for the grandchildren of "Wiki Frequencies".

Edit: Maybe the next template could be something like "FreqBusiness" ? Or, worse case, we add a parameter to FreqWiki to handle the parent-category, and then revisit all of the dependant-categories/pages to add the proper value.

Just a thought...

 

[ka3jjz]

Which 'static categories' do you think would apply here? Are some of the sub-categories in the Aviation area what you are thinking about? It's pretty easy to create a new template - particularly if it's limited to one general topic. That would reduce the workload somewhat...

As an aside, just for winks and grins, I put the North American map and the collaboration category front page into my user area to see if it's too busy - personally I like the way it looks, and we won't have the map 'buried' so deep that folks can't find it (as it was originally - it was way at the bottom of the Gateway, and I doubt many people even saw it). It is somewhat more 'database like' since the db has a map then all the pulldowns and links beneath it, which is almost the same as we have here

Take a look and see what you think. (W9BU Bob that includes you too). If it looks good to you then I will wipe the 4th page of the categories, modify the table and install this in the first page.

Mike

 

[AK9R]

As an aside, just for winks and grins, I put the North American map and the collaboration category front page into my user area to see if it's too busy - personally I like the way it looks...

Looks OK to me. There's not much you can do with the northeastern states. But, I think you've got a good solution there.