Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microformats/Archive 1

There has been some discussion of the use of the proposed 'species' microformat, on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants. Andy Mabbett 15:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of talk by a limited number of users on how to use it. I don't see anything on why it would be good. I don't see anything where the use has been embraced by the Wikipedia community. Jeepday 14:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you mean rationale! I'll try to add some use case example to the project page, but there are already some on the microformats 'wiki' [1]. It's too early for the use to be "embraced", that's what this project is about. Things are starting to happen! Andy Mabbett 15:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch this space. This a bootstrapping effort at the moment, and you won't see any extra utility in the very short term: but once there's a substantial amount of semantically-tagged content on Wikipedia, some very interesting things will start to happen... -- The Anome 19:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add a prod here about a better introduction of what these are all about on your projects page. At least define some types and benefits that could accrue for the added complexity. This looks like it may be something to consider incorporating into

WP:TSP

efforts to create better doc pages and some kind of directory/listing while we're tagging and updating templates and doc pages as we go.

But we're bootstrapping too (and yeah, need to revise our project page too!). I see no reason the many of us focused on templates shouldn't be coordinating better overall, and perhaps we need a template listing and linking the various template oriented sub-projects overall. Something like the MILTHIST links template to their various sub-projects comes to mind. Given that, at the least, we'd all know where to look for information and get a general idea of all that was going on! Best regards // FrankB 17:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC) (with cattle prod in hand! <g>)[reply]

Can anyone help with this

Apparently unAPI and COinS are not considered microformats? But they serve similar purposes? Maybe we should make the group more general, like Wikiproject semantic tagging or Wikiproject embedded metadata? — Omegatron 00:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of microformats created outside the self-styled "microformats community" (as exists in the wiki, mailing list and IRC channel accessed via microformats.org is thorny one. Supposedly, they don't adhere to some aspect or other of the "microformats principles" (COinS, for instance, is hidden metadata; my mention of unAPI on the wiki there was swiftly deleted and unAPI declared "not a microformat" and "offtopic". My complaints about such censorship resulted in a threat to ban me from the mailing list). Though I'm heavily involved in that "community", I'm ambivalent about the recognition of such formats (and the governance of that community) and have tried to stay neutral. The issue of whether or not your examples really are "microformats" needs to be addressed elsewhere. Meanwhile, how would you suggest we approach them in this project? I would definitely prefer to keep "microformats" in the title of this project (which could be a child of one of those you suggest). Andy Mabbett 07:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just ignore their squabbles and be as neutral as possible; pick the most appropriate tools for the job. If the word "microformats" is "owned" by that community, and a more generic term can be used, we should use the more generic term. — Omegatron 03:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who makes a microformat and who decides what is the accepted standard for a particular microformat? Remember 02:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late response, I've only just noticed your post. See the above discussion, and, in particular microformats.org. Andy Mabbett 15:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added some coordinates, using hCard and Geo, to Tinsley Viaduct. My work was reverted and there's been some, er, interesting discussion which folks here might want to read. Andy Mabbett 15:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A poll is now being conducted. Andy Mabbett 20:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these coordinates don't belong in the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of cartography data. One set of coordinates for the geographic location of the article's topic is sufficient. — Omegatron 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See
  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microformats/COinS

I opened a bug [2] about allowing rel=license. This would be very useful and easy to implement on the free content licenses for images. They are all templated already, and they all link to the license anyway. One concern, and I realize this is a concern for that microformat in general, is how to specify what is under that license when it isn't the entire page. To me, this isn't a huge deal since the image description page doesn't contain a ton of information, and it should be obvious what we're talking about, but the concern exists. - cohesion 00:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed various discussions loosely connected to microformatting, often animated, often lengthy, in various locations.

I can see how microformats can be introduced usefully into a page for which a single infobox is appropriate, or where a table is appropriate. I can't see (yet) how you (WikiProject Microformats) are going to treat a page where these are not appropriate - one doesn't need to look far to find examples, eg Dave Whelan, a topical figure, is both an ex-footballer + a notable businessman + notable in ownership both in football and rugby league, so would not fit readily into an info box. An article (say) on the buildings of Sheffield University might include half a dozen buildings. A description of say the Pennine Way might usefully contain 100+ items of geo-data.

Suppose you are not allowed an info box and not allowed any tables, how will it be done?

In the short term, using inline, HTML spans; as is already used on some pages. In the longer term, by creating appropriate templates to give an in-line display (here's a

infobox biography}} is suitable for multi- disciplinarians such as Whelan. Andy Mabbett 11:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Any comments or additions? Andy Mabbett 22:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about these as additional goals?

• the template data within the page source should also be easily parsable, without needing to render the wikitext, so that microformat metadata can be scraped from dumps without needing to render all the page content in a full MediaWiki installation; this can make things much easier for many reusers
• harmonization of metadata template formats across Wikipedia projects, so that the same or similar templates can be used across projects
• interwiki transfer of metadata between projects
• reaching out to our own metadata consumers; Google, Kolossus and so on
• creation of a proposal-and-approval pipeline for new metadata templates, and changes to old ones; something like the bot flag process is probably about the right level of formality, with its stages of proposal, discussion, limited testing for a short period, followed by final approval or rejection.

-- The Anome 09:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, those read like the methods by which we will achieve the aims, not aims in themselves, Is that what you intended? Your final suggestion seems unnecessarily restrictive. (Apologies for the belated response; I have only just noticed your comment) Andy Mabbett 22:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused over what the difference is between Wikipedia:Persondata and the hCard format. As far as I can tell, hCard was developed with parameters for use in contact details, like you would find in an address book or directory, for people and organisations. The last time I checked, Wikipedia was not a contact details database or directory. Persondata seems to have originated on the German Wikipedia and be designed with more encyclopedic biographical data in mind, such as name, and dates and places of birth and death. Shouldn't Wikipedia decide on one or the other and use that one, rather than duplicating information? Carcharoth 00:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persondata is hidden from the user; it still needs to be entered a second time, to be visible to the reader. All the hCard microformat data does is wrap the existing visible data in a specific set of HTML classes, in order that it can be parsed by machines also. No extra contact details are added, to use hCard, than are already in articles anyway. hCard may have been developed for "business card" style use, but it has been repurposed through different implementations which do other things with the data - that's one of its great strengths. (The advantage of Persondata is apparently that it is coded in page source code, which some parsers use, rather than in just the output HTML). Bear in mind also that Persondata is specific to Wikipedia, while hCard is widely available, and thus so are the tools which parse it - it's not likely that Persondata support will be built into the next generation of browsers, though they will support microformats. Andy Mabbett 07:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. The background, in case you want to comment over there, is at this thread. Carcharoth 09:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new beta version of Operator (0.8b). One of the improvements is an optional icon in the location bar, when a page with a microformat is visited. Andy Mabbett 10:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]