Home  •   Field Guide  •   Forums  •    Unread Posts  •   Maps  •   Find a Hike!
| Help page | Discussion | View source | History | Print Friendly and PDF

Help talk:Contents

From Oregon Hikers Field Guide


Unresolved Issues


Let's take the "stub" concept to the next level. Instead of saying "stub", let's have every page that's built start out as Template:Draft. The hike_template and destination templates should have the Template:Draft encoding built into it with the result being something like:

"This page is incomplete. For more information, or to express interest in contributing to this page, please contact one of the page contributors"

(Or words to that effect)

The page can only graduate from Template:Draft once the page creator (or main contributor) is done with the page, and at least one other person has reviewed it's contents. I'm thinking this more and more important as we proceed as I see bleeding through of copied information from one page to another. For instance, I copied my Eagle Creek Punchbowl hike page out to the Tunnel Falls one. The Tunnel Falls one is just sitting out there right now with bad information.

Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

I like the draft idea, but I wonder if maybe the review might work better with another template. Maybe it's starts as "draft". I finish my page and replace "draft" with "ready for review". Someone else grabs it, reviews it and removes "ready for review". On the other hand, are we over thinking things? Maybe we just all need to be responsible enough to mark incomplete things or to not leave things hanging.
Stevefromdodge 19:01, 2 January 2007 (MST)
That sounds cool. I just don't want us to require ourselves to HAVE to do all this before launch. Martell 20:32, 2 January 2007 (MST)
Retiredjerry 07:45, 3 January 2007 (MST)That's just what I was saying - it's easier to start with an example (Eagle Creek Punchbowl) and copy over to a new hike (Tunnel Falls). Starting with the template is more difficult. Most people will use example but our instructions say to use template. May as well change our instructions and specify an example that meets our standard. As it is now, people will use an example that may not meet our standard so inconsistent formats will proliferate : )
Jerry, I'm sorry, but I don't think you realize the problms this will cause. Just yesterday morning, I found a page full of half completed edits that was a mix of two completely different hikes. The only thing that clued me in is that the hikes were in different mountain ranges. If they had been close together, I would have driven to the wrong trailhead. A wiki is a live system and it's accessed all the time. The first place most users go is the recent changes page and they'll be led right to half finished work.

Stevefromdodge 08:12, 3 January 2007 (MST)

After going through over half our pages in the last few days, I don't really think we're going to need this on a permanent basis. I've found very few pages with bad data from copies or the like. Most of the pages I've marked under development are obviously unfinished. That look sort of tacky, but it doesn't present the problems I was worried of earlier, where we actually had false information online.
I've thought of an alternative to the whole draft process, that is beginning to make sense to me. I think we form a core group (or continue to be one) and the core group commits to regularly check the "recent changes" page. It could be a pain, but I think if we just get in the habit of looking at what people are putting up, we can keep things in shape. Of course, we also reserve the right up front to yank anything no questions asked. It could be plagiarism, copyright infringement, erroneous, or just ugly as hell. If we don't like it, it goes away. I don't see us needing to use it much, it it's power we should expect up front. I think once we each completely cover our favorite areas, a process which will probably take a few months, we'll have a bit more time to check up on newbies.

Stevefromdodge 23:34, 15 January 2007 (MST)

Page checklists?

Do you want me to come up with a checklist for the reviewer to verifying all the page contents?: For instance: Check: a. Lat/Long? b. Map links? c. Hike Ring (if available) TH: d. Hike Ring (if available) <-- e. Hike Ring (if available) --> f. Elevation? g. (Waterfall) Height?: h. Proofread and spellchecked description?

Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

That's fine, but I think we can launch with pages that are unreviewed. Martell 20:32, 2 January 2007 (MST)
Jeff, I think we already have this in the template. Granted we don't have a guarantee that everything is followed, but maybe we just check on new pages as they go up.

Stevefromdodge 23:34, 15 January 2007 (MST)

Incomplete pages

My guess is that 40% of wiki content is incomplete or not up to current standard and should probably be tagged draft at this point. Does it make sense for me to go back and tag all these (assuming we like the 'draft' concept)

What percent complete should we shoot for before we're ready to go LIVE?

Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

If we're going to do that, we should probably mark everything as draft with a script. It won't take long to edit the template out of complete pages and it would ensure everything get read.
Stevefromdodge 19:01, 2 January 2007 (MST)
I'll be done reading every page by the end of the week. Incompletes will all be marked in the Category "Under Development"

Stevefromdodge 23:34, 15 January 2007 (MST)

Trip Report / Conversation Links

One of the big priorities for me is that Trip Reports and conversations get their due on the wiki pages to help with cross-pollination:

a. How "related" is related? b. If there is an "eagle creek" trip report, does that get linked to every Eagle Creek related page? (ie: Loowit Falls)

Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

This might be a good job for editors in training.
Stevefromdodge 19:01, 2 January 2007 (MST)

When I get my first review done, I plan on hitting the trip reports and linking them. (Amongst finishing the Gorge and a few other surprise pages.

Stevefromdodge 23:34, 15 January 2007 (MST)


As a rule it's a good idea for us to promote guidebooks on our wiki pages. The idea is more being a watershed of information rather than the end-all-be-all

How much is too much? Do we include the list on every destination page on a hike?

Is there a preferred list of book authors? (do we want to include like 10 different books)

Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

I don't think we need a "preferred" list. I think the more the merrier. The list might get long for Multnomah Falls, but that will be the exception rather than the rule.:
Stevefromdodge 19:05, 2 January 2007 (MST)

One other thing to think about. Paul allowed me to use his Drift Creek Falls pics. That sent me scurrying about, realizing that I don't own his book, so I hadn't included it in my pages. I'll be rectifying that soon, as well. It looks pretty tacky to promote every book except the guy the gave you the pic.

Stevefromdodge 23:38, 15 January 2007 (MST)

Hike Templates: Who's in Charge?

Who is in charge of the hike templates? a. I think we need one master, one guy in charge? b. Going forward: What would be the process for updating a template? Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

I think templates should only be changed by consensus of the elite. Of course, who's the elite??
Stevefromdodge 19:01, 2 January 2007 (MST)
a. I think the original five of us can have access to them, but only change when we agree on it. I trust us all to have the access though of course. b. We will probably have to discuss it. I think maybe a 4/5 agreement or something. Martell 20:32, 2 January 2007 (MST)

A new URL !

Let's agree on a new WIKI site URL! Suggestions? Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

I'm a fan of wiki.portlandhikers.com or maybe hikes.portlandhikers.com. bible.portlandhikers.com??
Stevefromdodge 19:05, 2 January 2007 (MST)

Do we call the WIKI, "The WIKI"?

Will the tab on PortlandHikers.com be called "WIKI"? - That's not very intuitive for the average user. En-hike-lypedia? (just kidding) What do we call this monster!!?? Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

I like wiki because that's what it is, unless we can think of something better. Martell 20:32, 2 January 2007 (MST)
I'm drifting away from wiki in the URL or the common term. We're using wiki software, but I'm not sure if we're building a wiki anymore. It seems a lot more special.
Stevefromdodge 23:34, 15 January 2007 (MST)

Vertical Spacing: Combining tabs

This is Jerry's suggestions to tighten up the vertical spacing. I think we've done enough for now by removing the TOC and the "Info" category heading. But let's leave this an open question to review again later Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

=== Locator map icon --- Do we want to use a little locator map icons like this? Pnw.jpg Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

At that level of detail, I don't think it adds anything.
Stevefromdodge 19:01, 2 January 2007 (MST)

Plan for GO LIVE

Here are some general questions about going live? a. Can we make a master list of "must haves" hikes before we go live? b. How do we know we are ready ? What are the deliverables? How many 'draft pages' must graduate?

Honestly, this is a sliding scale. We could go live this afternoon an a lot of people would be impressed. At the other end, we never go live because we're still finding problems and adding content.
Stevefromdodge 19:01, 2 January 2007 (MST)
I think we are pretty close to going live personally. This doesn't have to be perfect on launch day. Martell 20:32, 2 January 2007 (MST)

The Open WIKI Concept: Who get's to play in our sandbox?!

Let's discuss the "open" wiki concept again. When Jerry came on board it became obvious very quickly that we have a pretty advanced schema, with a lot of t's to cross and I's to dot, and we still have a lot of unanswered questions. So let's revisit the question:

Here's my current thoughts on my ever-morphing opinion: (recognizing that a lot of this can't be enforced in the wiki software)

    • can report a bug or error
    • Can add an external link or trip report to an existing page
    • Can add or modify content on spur pages
    • Can edit in the sandbox
    • Can review and modify content on existing pages
    • Can upload photos
    • Can add or modify photos on existing pages
    • Can add spur pages to any page
    • Can add links to spur pages on parent page
    • Can create new pages
    • Can approve draft pages for "live" status
    • Can assign categories to pages
    • Can delete pages
  • AN "ADMIN" Can create or modify
    • hike templates
    • The main wiki page
    • ...wiki templates
    • …help and guidelines
    • Admin privileges to the wiki software and server

I'm not 100% sold on any of this. And my opinion will change again tomorrow.

Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

I think your scheme has good points, but if the software can't enforce it, it's way too complicated.
The key to this discussion, I think is whether we view the site as primarily a fun way to get to know each other and share, or primarily as an internet resource for hikers in the area. If we're the first then we want to be real open, if the second, then we want to be real accurate, which means pretty closed. Personally, I really like the concept a solid site more than an open one.
Stevefromdodge 19:01, 2 January 2007 (MST)
I think that it can be a good resource and still be open. This has been my experience with other wikis. Martell 20:32, 2 January 2007 (MST)
I'm all about open. This is a wiki after all. Most of the stuff above can't be done without special coding, but we can protect certain pages (guideline pages, template pages, main page). Martell 20:32, 2 January 2007 (MST)

Max Photos on Page? and other guidelines

Let's agree on a max number of photos on a page and some other guidelines. Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

I say 3 photos, not including maps.
Stevefromdodge 19:01, 2 January 2007 (MST)
Maybe a solid max of 10, but some pages don't need more than 1. It'S a judgement call, and we can explain that in the guideline. Martell 20:32, 2 January 2007 (MST)

Standardizing the Hike Logs

Can we agree discuss and agree on a standard way of doing Hike Logs? Steve has a great format, but I want to make sure we all understand ( cause I didn't at first) Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

Sure, we can discuss (as long as we don't change anything) LOL
Stevefromdodge 19:01, 2 January 2007 (MST)
I'm noticing quite a few hikes without logs. I'll be happy to tackle those, if you guys want.
Stevefromdodge 23:34, 15 January 2007 (MST)

THE PCT / Forest Park

How do we handle the PCT?

How do we handle Forest Park and other urban areas? Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

I think we handle the PCT like any other trail. Using miles from Mexico in the logs is kind of fun, but I don't know if we need any special attention.
I think we can handle urban hikes just like our current stuff. Maybe the trailhead is a parking lot and the destination is another parking lot, but the basic schema is sound.
The only change I would make is that the smallest of parks can get by with a consolidated page, where the hike, trailhead and destination is all one page, kind of like Sheppard's Dell.
Stevefromdodge 19:01, 2 January 2007 (MST)

Fees and Regulations: Trailhead page?

Fees and Regulations? Should this be on trailheads instead of hikes? Or BOTH? Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

Fees are usually trailheads, regs are usually hikes. So far, I don't think we've made any reg entries
Stevefromdodge 19:01, 2 January 2007 (MST)
Agreed. Paved Access I also think should be TH only. Martell 20:32, 2 January 2007 (MST)

Test audience

Do we get a test audience and get their feedback? I'm debating whether we've already gotten too complicated! Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

If we were getting paid to do this, yeah. Martell 20:32, 2 January 2007 (MST)


Search the WIKI from ph.com

Question for Dan and Jeff Black, how do we search the WIKI from the main PH.com page?

Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

<form action=http://oregonhikers.com/wiki/Special:Search method="get">Search the wiki: <input type=text name=search></form><input type=submit value=Search> Martell 20:36, 2 January 2007 (MST)

Samples with Templates

"Live" samples. Can we include a link on each of the template pages (hike, destination, trailhead) to a completed page that can be used as a sample for page builders? It might help Jerry's question. Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

In my trail log template, I've actually got a completed page in the page.
Stevefromdodge 19:01, 2 January 2007 (MST)
That works fine for me. Martell 20:32, 2 January 2007 (MST)

The Global NOTOC

The global notoc makes it difficult to read discussion pages like this one. Is there and override to include the toc? Jeffstatt 18:40, 2 January 2007 (MST)

I don't think so. Martell 20:32, 2 January 2007 (MST)

Bullets, indent spacing

Dan, can the number of spaces the bullets use be shortened? Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

Yeah, I just haven't gotten it to work yet. Martell 20:32, 2 January 2007 (MST)

Spur pages

1) Let's agree on what spur pages we should have to start off: photos? History? Geology? Additional info? Current conditions? 2) Should any spur page links be included in our hike and destination templates? Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

I think just about anything is game for different pages, but the only one that could be pretty much of a standard is the Trail Log. Everything else, history, geology, you name it, will be really context driven. Who wants to wade through the Geology of an old growth forest?
Stevefromdodge 19:01, 2 January 2007 (MST)
1. I wrote a guide that covers spur pages. Maybe we could take the discussion there. 2. I don't think they should. Spur pages only need to be added when they become neccessary. Martell 20:32, 2 January 2007 (MST)
Added to Talk:Spur Pages Martell 20:45, 2 January 2007 (MST)

Category Boolean Search

Can a user do a boolean search using multiple categories? Like ("Easy" and "360 Degree View") Jeffstatt 18:32, 2 January 2007 (MST)

I doubt it. It would be cool though. Martell 20:32, 2 January 2007 (MST)

Maybe so. Here's the message I got today from a failed search.
Note: Unsuccessful searches are often caused by searching for common words like "have" and "from", which are not indexed, or by specifying more than one search term (only pages containing all of the search terms will appear in the result).
I don't have time to test now.
Stevefromdodge 13:13, 3 January 2007 (MST)
Did a google search and saw this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Category_intersection so it sounds like it is something they plan to implement in the future. Martell 23:00, 3 January 2007 (MST)

Family Friendly / Family Friendly

Why is "family friendly" a category and a info item? Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

Categories don't show up on the page
Stevefromdodge 19:01, 2 January 2007 (MST)

The WIKI and the Hike Finder

One of main goals of the WIKI is so the Hike Finder made more sense. Write now the pushpins link to trip reports, which is fine for now, but it would be great to have those pushpins reflect wiki destinations and trailheads a. Who and how do we start the process of redirecting push pins b. How does this get updated and stay in sync going forward? (that's like a job in itself!!!) Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

a. I need to do this probably and b. yeah, it's a lot of work. I plan to code an auto submission/edit tool, whereas right now it is just an xml file. Martell 20:32, 2 January 2007 (MST)

Master list of Categories

Is there a master list of categories to draw from when a page is created? a. How can we make it easier for page creators to include all the right categories? b. This has a big impact on the usefulness of the links on the main wiki page Jeffstatt 18:24, 2 January 2007 (MST)

Related question:
Can categories be locked down?
Stevefromdodge 19:01, 2 January 2007 (MST)
I'm not sure. I think you could lock the category page, but I don't know if you could lock it from having things added. Easy to test. Martell 20:32, 2 January 2007 (MST)
a. I have been compiling these on two articles, one named "Index" (for areas) and one named "Tags" for the tag type of categories.
b. Yep, I have been working a lot on those cats recently too. Martell 20:32, 2 January 2007 (MST)
Oregon Hikers Field Guide is built as a collaborative effort by its user community. While we make every effort to fact-check, information found here should be considered anecdotal. You should cross-check against other references before planning a hike. Trail routing and conditions are subject to change. Please contact us if you notice errors on this page.

Hiking is a potentially risky activity, and the entire risk for users of this field guide is assumed by the user, and in no event shall Trailkeepers of Oregon be liable for any injury or damages suffered as a result of relying on content in this field guide. All content posted on the field guide becomes the property of Trailkeepers of Oregon, and may not be used without permission.