Forums: Index > General Discussion: Question Regarding the Standardized FormatPost in this thread
I noticed that the format I used when I created the Coelogyne nitida page was drastically lumped together and the information over generalized. What's the logic or reasoning behind doing so? Epiphyte 06:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Its for consistency on the site to make it easier for users to navigate and find information. Articles can have more information added into their specific sections. I think I only left out the temperature ranges and rainfall. But I will try to incorporate it in. --Cs california 22:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that it's important to have standardization but it will be easier to navigate and find information if habit (epiphyte, geophyte, lithophyte, etc), countries, latitude, elevation, temperature, water and light all have their own section. That way, people can quickly look at the table of contents to see if the section has been added and link directly to the section that has the information they are looking for... instead of scrolling down and reading through large paragraphs.
- Additionally, I don't think specific information should be generalized. For example, saying that Coelogyne nitida has an average temperature range from 35F to 66F is considerably more informative than saying it is a cool to intermediate grower. If specific information is not available then general information is better than nothing. Epiphyte 00:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- You have a good point about the large paragraphs. But if culture was to better depending on the species and location. But if it is simplified, it would easy to just use a template for culture, but I don't want to redo ~1000 pages with templates. Anyways the paragraphs is not that bad. One paragraph describes the culture and if it gets long then it can be divided into sections. Latitude coordinates are not really useful because of its large deviations (its a mess). As an admin of several other wikis I can tell you that the auto generated TOC gets really annoying when it becomes large and many people would prefer scrolling or separating out long pages. I guess the best thing is to stick with paragraphs and separate them if you have copious amounts of information.--Cs california 09:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, to be honest, it's considerably easier and more time efficient for me to transfer facts then it is to try and put those facts together to form a paragraph. So should I decide to continue to contribute I'll probably create the page like I did last time and you can put it into paragraph form if you like. It's fine if you generalize information but please leave in the specific information as well. I noticed you re-added the temperature, light and rain facts back to the Coelogyne nitida article so that's good. I'm not quite sure what you mean about "Large deviations" with regards to Latitude range? People can use latitude with elevation to predict temperatures. Without latitude, elevation information is fairly useless. Epiphyte 17:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Latitude range is only a specific range. It is not really necessary because of the large distribution area would need multiple coordinates of longitude and latitude. Finding the temperature can be accomplish by using distribution information and cross referencing it with the elevation and biome on a topographic map. So it is not really necessary --Cs california 22:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- A latitude range would only require the southernmost and northernmost latitude...not multiple coordinates (although a distribution map for each species would be helpful). Generally speaking, a large latitude/elevation range indicates temperature tolerance while a small latitude/elevation range indicates temperature intolerance. It definitely does not hurt to include a latitude range and it helps people understand how latitude and elevation influence temperature. Based on your response, I'd say the average orchid enthusiast is quite uninformed regarding this basic but important and relevant concept. Epiphyte 21:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)