User talk:Admin

From CruisersWiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Contributors and navigation bars in table form

I have tested a bot for these to re-implement them in a template form. If there are no objections I'll proceed with conversion --Vadim 11:56, 9 March 2016 (GMT)

Are these templates different from what we have been installing recently? If these are different can we see an example of them?--Istioploos 13:34, 9 March 2016 (GMT)
The templates are the same. See, for example, Evros Lakki Marina for changes --Vadim 13:54, 9 March 2016 (GMT)
I did see them yesterday. They are very good. No objections from me. --Istioploos 15:26, 9 March 2016 (GMT)
As there are no any other comments, I'm launching the bot --Vadim 13:53, 10 March 2016 (GMT)

Your Assistance Template

This is a good change and removes the unsightly addition to the TOC. Bravo! --Istioploos 13:41, 9 March 2016 (GMT)

You're welcome! --Vadim 13:56, 9 March 2016 (GMT)

Suggested templates

I've took liberty to move this section to Talk:World_Cruising_and_Sailing_Wiki#Suggested_tem as it closely follows previous sections there --Vadim 17:40, 11 March 2016 (GMT)

Canal icon in "Dest"

Vadim, I uploaded Waterway-canal icon.png. I tried to add this in {{Dest legend}} but it was too complicated and I gave up. If you can take a look, and if you do not mind, it may be educational for me to see how to do it. --Istioploos 14:51, 9 March 2016 (GMT)

Done --Vadim 15:45, 9 March 2016 (GMT)

Yes, I see it and also saw how you did it. I was afraid to do it not been clear on the interaction of the 3 templates. Thank you. By the way, I modified the icon to make it more centered. I upload the modified version but as with many images it does not show right away. --Istioploos 18:05, 9 March 2016 (GMT)


Vadim, I tried to "modernize" a passage page and I realized that the existing {{poi}} templates do not meet all needs. Specifically:

  • regular Poi s are h4 but there are several places that one need h5 with smaller letters (otherwise having the same parameters & behavior)
  • inline Poi s need to be expanded to a type that shows the coords and when clicked goes to the chartlet that is similar to normal poi s but inline. These are in all passage pages
  • it would be nice if in addition to anchorages & berths we had a harbor poi category.

Could we do these expansions? --Istioploos 23:33, 9 March 2016 (GMT)

I found Poi5 that I had made some time ago. I modified it to be similar to Poi. I am sure that it can be improved. Also I it can be used inline with the "inline" parameter. For this usage please see Aegean to West Mediterranean Passages. --Istioploos 13:53, 11 March 2016 (GMT)

Vasilis, there is already Template:Mark was introduced with a new version of Template:Poi. I've amended Aegean to West Mediterranean Passages to employ them there.
I was not aware of "Mark", it looks good, very handy for Passages.
No problem with harbor poi category. Do you have a sample page for it and an icon?
How about the Harbour icon.png?
I'd say it's acceptable. By the way how is about using INT-1 icons? --Vadim 12:20, 13 March 2016 (GMT)
Vasilis, for 2 types you've added to POIs you'd need also to find some icons for a chartlet. They are different from ones at a page. I used brown icons there because otherwise they are completely lost among Navionics charts markup. You may also want to have a look at other map icons at Wikimedia --Vadim 18:27, 13 March 2016 (GMT)
I am somewhat confused. Do we need 2 sets of icons: one for regular wiki pages and the other for display on chartlet? If so, we could make existing page icons brown for chartlet. How many do we need? --Istioploos 19:12, 13 March 2016 (GMT)
Yes, Navionics chart is too colored, so colorful icons which displayed at an article would be lost there (you may notice they use marina symbol for every anchorage). I found these brown ones are still quite recognisable if they put above a Navionis chart. Are you able to suggest any other options? --Vadim 09:50, 14 March 2016 (GMT)
There is also Template:Geo which was designed a geographical position only, without almost any other visual effect at a page, but it creates a marker at a chartlet.
I tried to use but it gives me an error "Template:Listing". Tried including a listing parameter but no joy. Will this put a mark on the chartlet? Is it invisible in the page where it is included?
It needs to be fixed --Vadim 20:58, 11 March 2016 (GMT)
By the way, wouldn't you mind if I move this section to User talk:Admin? --Vadim 17:49, 11 March 2016 (GMT)
Certainly I do not mind. This is your page. --Istioploos 20:46, 11 March 2016 (GMT)

The changes (poi3 -> poi) in Anchorages of Chios Island have garbled the TOC. For instance Avloniá is displayed as being part of Elyndas which is definitely not the case. We need someway or another to control the heading level of a Poi as we do with headers (h3, h4, h5).--Istioploos 14:20, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

This is because infoboxes were used there instead of POIs. Have a look Anchorages of Chios Island --Vadim 15:30, 13 March 2016 (GMT)
Also at Anchorages of Chios Island#Angelia, Salagonas, Trachilia, & Kato Faná section Template:coord is replaced with Template:mark with altname parameter --Vadim 17:04, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

I am looking at Vadim's new changes in Anchorages of Chios Island. First impression is good but there new problems now. I used before the inboxes to provide image, coords, chartlet, and panoramio. The poi replacement looses the last and creates a new problem. The chartlet now do not zoom properly. The "mapzoom" parameter from infobox has to be changes to "zoom". Maybe it was our mistake to have "mapzoom" in some templates and "zoom" in others.

Another problem introduce by these changes is readability. New lines (NL) within the Poi text are suppressed. This is a "new feature".

On the good side the "alt name" parameters is a good addition. --Istioploos 19:12, 13 March 2016 (GMT)


Is there a way for "Mark" to operate without the name parameter? Often one just wants an anonymous waypoint. --Istioploos 18:28, 12 March 2016 (GMT)
I think it could be done with Template:Geo, which I stil need to fix. Do you have a sample of such a waypoint? --Vadim 12:15, 13 March 2016 (GMT)
No, Template:Geo does not do what I want in Passage pages. Need the Template:Mark or an equivalent with the visual mark and display of coordinates but without a name. --Istioploos 12:52, 13 March 2016 (GMT)
As discussed Template:Mark is an inline version of Template:Poi with a name. Template:Geo will be altered to not display a name, but I feel strongly that any pir of coordinates needs some kind of ID --Vadim 13:13, 13 March 2016 (GMT)
I agree with you for most cases but on a passage there can be waypoints in the middle of the water that have no name. Yet, the showing of the coordinates there is very important. --Istioploos 14:08, 13 March 2016 (GMT)
After some investigation I have to say "waypoints must have names":
  • Template:Poi needs names to create a proper structure for microformats
  • Chartlet uses KML format, where placemarks must have names
  • Same for "Download KML" feature
  • Last, but not the least: a chartplotter at your boat also has manes for waypoints
Actually this is not that bad: you can assing some simple names to them (like wp1) and then even make a reference to them in an article's text. See Hout Bay#Approach and Gulf of Aden#Passage Details (1) for examples --Vadim 16:35, 15 March 2016 (GMT)
Ok, you have convinced me. wp1 etc it is. Sorry it too this long. --Istioploos 18:12, 15 March 2016 (GMT)

Changes to templates

It would be quite reasonable to coordinate changes to templates otherwise it will become unmanageable mess --Vadim 13:09, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

Yes, you are right. Are you willing to be the coordinator on this? That is if one of us wants to make a change on a template to check with you first? --Istioploos 14:10, 13 March 2016 (GMT)
Let's try to discuss these things first at this page, like we already done for some other templates --Vadim 18:22, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

POI types

Having Template:Poi harbour type introduced by Istioploos I realised that I didn't explain my choise of types in the design I implemented in this template. This especially concerns type berth. Here I've tried to follow INT 1 categories of IHO standard S-4 as expalined at OpenStreetMap wiki. In this sence marina symbol includes any berth with facilities including ones at harbours -- to avid confusion instead of marina I used berth for POI type in this case.

Harbour is an upper category in the hierarchy, which may include a number of berthing options (like it happens, for example, in Italy). So in this sence harbour type should be used only when a POI describes a location with multiple berthing options, like a port.

In some place it's quite difficult to distinguish between a marina proper and a berth at a harboour, hence was my choise --Vadim 19:08, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

In my mind at least there is a distinction between "harbor" or "port" and "marina". A harbor is an enclosed port providing shelter from the waves. It may or may not house a marina. Many harbors have no more facilities than a quay. Some have moorings, some do not and you have to anchor. Some municipal harbors are operated bare bone marinas.
A marina on the other hand is organized, has personal, and has many facilities such as WC, fuel, water, electricity, a yard, stores etc it is also expensive. Many marinas also provide some security. In our wiki we often have different pages for ports and marinas.
I do not care whether we call them "harbour" or "berths". But we already have a split between POIs and Dest. --Istioploos 19:29, 13 March 2016 (GMT)
Here one can find some interesting definitions:
  • marina -- A harbour with facilities for small boats and yachts
  • marina_no_facilities -- A harbour for small boats and yachts without any facilities.
I believe we need to stick with this terminology: a marina is a one of types of a harbour. So terms marina and harbour are not mutually exclusive --Vadim 15:16, 5 April 2016 (BST)

More on POIs

The use of POIs instead of "===" (headers) removes localized "Edit" buttons and you have to edit the whole page rather then a section. This will make editing much harder for new members.

They also scrabble newlines (NL) in their "text". I suspect this happens when there are {{mark}} with the text i.e. "Poi | text = .... {{mark| ...}} ..."

--Istioploos 20:03, 13 March 2016 (GMT)

This dreaded issue with newlines was fixed eventually. Thanks for pointing it out. In return I'm offering a different layout for Anchorages of Chios Island#Angelia, Salagonas, Trachilia, & Kato Faná. I hope you'll enjoy it --Vadim 17:16, 14 March 2016 (GMT)

The Anchorages of Chios Island page now looks very good. Still the lack of "Edit" buttons is a problem. Let us think some more about this page before we implement similar changes to others. --Istioploos 18:21, 14 March 2016 (GMT)


Once we are here. at the Anchorages of Chios Island. The 2 column galleries did no look there quite smooth. Have a look at my version of "emulated gallery" which has a variable width which follows a screen size --Vadim 19:45, 14 March 2016 (GMT)

I personally prefer the old version of galleries because they allow more control. For example with 4 images one can freeze them in 2 X 2 display (2 /row). The flexible one can change to an ugly 3 top and 1 bottom. --Istioploos 11:54, 15 March 2016 (GMT)
For me 2x2 arrangement looks ugly on a wide screen. It's almost like 1 column of image at the centre of a page. That's why I've suggested an alternative -- we need to think how other readers use this wiki --Vadim 12:49, 15 March 2016 (GMT)
As we say in Greece "You cannot account for everyone tastes". I will go with the consensus (if anyone else bothers). If not, I will leave to to the taste of page's main contributor. --Istioploos 13:26, 15 March 2016 (GMT)
In pages that I have added galleries I used the following rules:
  1. no more then 3/row (i.e. either 2X2 or 3X3)
  2. if there the last image is all by itself, I use a separate gallery so that it is centered under the others above it. --Istioploos 13:26, 15 March 2016 (GMT)
Can I tip in here? I favour a gallery width that fits to the page width, otherwise it looks very odd. I've spent quite a bit of time changing image sizes manually to get them to fit the page width and it would be great is this were automated. However, if it is not to look daft, a gallery should, I suggest, be at least three landscape or four portrait photos per row - otherwise the photos look better down the r/h side, as on most standard pages. I actually think that the Anchorages of Chios Island page looks a mess in layout terms. Sorry, but that's the result of 25 years in marketing and public relations. --Athene of Lymington 15:04, 15 March 2016 (GMT)
Godron, It would be great if you'd make a copy of Anchorages of Chios Island and change it per your taste. Perhaps we'll find some common grounds there.
Please do so Gordon but on a separate copy. Then we can see what you mean. --Istioploos 18:31, 15 March 2016 (GMT)
As a matter of fact Anchorages of Chios Island is not good for yet another reason: it's chartlet shows only anchorages, but apparently a reader needs an integral view of this location: to see the other POIs there as well. I would rather split the island into 2-3 parts. Each of them would give more or less complete view of the respective territory --Vadim 16:46, 15 March 2016 (GMT)
Originally there was a single page for Chios. I spilt it into 3: Chios, Chios Ports, and Anchorages of Chios Island because the wiki complained that it was too long. I did this to few other pages as well. My personal preference is to have a single page per island and then have separate pages for large ports and marinas. What do you people think on this issue? --Istioploos 18:31, 15 March 2016 (GMT)
I've done a copy of the Chios anchorages page [1] (can't resist a challenge). I've been ruthless in deleting some of the photos that don't add anything to the reader's understanding and removing all the arguably irrelevant headings at the bottom. I've also followed the principle of larger photos in the galleries with a maximum of three landscape (or four portrait) as I've suggested elsewhere. While it's not an ideal page to demonstrate the effect of layout improvements, I hope it will give you an idea. Meanwhile, I agree with Vasilis on the island/port/marina hierarchy but anchorages have always been a conundrum. Usually they are incorporated on the nearest port page, but I recognize that some cruisers avoid harbours and want to go from anchorage to anchorage, so there is a valid argument for a separate anchorages page. A very crude example, I know, but could something like [2], which I prepared for the Pakleni Islands - but with much more detailed infoboxes - be a possible solution? --Athene of Lymington 18:55, 15 March 2016 (GMT)
Gordon, I am sorry but it looks terrible in any but a very large display. I looked at it with a 26" monitor, a 12" MacBook, an iPad, and iPhone. It only looks descent on the 26" if you make a large window that covers most of the screen. That is caused by the large 3X3 photos. I also object to the removal of the Mavra Volia picture this is one the loveliest beeches in the Aegean and has considerable archaeological interest.
I also did look at your Pakleni Islands Google map. True I, as have said before, am not a great fun of Google maps but this one is very bad. The pin icons are crude and totally obscure the island. Please compare this to the elegant annotated chartlet of Lipsi prepared recently by Vadim.
Finally you have removed the "Personal Notes" section where we seem to have agreed to provide in all pages. --Istioploos 23:03, 15 March 2016 (GMT)
Yes, you're right - I hadn't tried it on a smaller display. What it does prove, I think, is that Vadim's idea of a gallery that scales automatically to the page width is the correct approach. Also, I agree that the Navionics-based chartlet is a great improvement on Google Maps - I wasn't actually advocating the Pakleni Islands as a model, since I recognise it's crude, but rather the approach (on which we seem to have a consensus). Sorry about the Mavra Volia picture, but I do feel that most anchorage photos look the same and are only worth including if they show the overall configuration (e.g. an aerial shot) or notable features or hazards. However, that's a personal view; I'm simply not keen on encouraging our editors (once we get some!) to post snapshots of their boats at anchor. Of course, the removal of Personal Notes was an oversight and I've put it back. --Athene of Lymington 09:42, 16 March 2016 (GMT)
I too, made a new test version at Anchorages of Chios Island that addresses some of these concerns. I think that as Gordon has pointed out breaking up in the way the page for Chios island, although I did it, leaves a lot to be desired. Open for suggestions. --Istioploos 12:33, 16 March 2016 (GMT)
I think that's a good discussion so far. I would also agree with Athene of Lymington that "Mavra Volia" image is not that informative, same is about "The anchorage in Kato Fana". Also "Mavra Volia" image at the Istioploos version is stays separately rather in a group with other 3 images there.
My main suggestion though is to split the whole list of anchorages into 3-4 groups, like North, SE, SW -- whatever. The 2nd thing that this article lists only anchorages -- so marina/ harbour etc. there.
As for a sample of a Google map I'll dare to show mine version [3]. Gordon might remember it --Vadim 14:22, 16 March 2016 (GMT)
No, I hadn't seen the Kornati map - with the addition of text summaries about the various anchorages, it's exactly what I have in mind. Although of course it's much better if we can accomplish this using the Navionics charts. I still think that, since we're on an island as the example, it's better to have details of nearby anchorages on the port pages, as at present, so that cruisers can check them out as alternative moorings, as well as having a separate page just listing the anchorages. I tend to think that separating this out into sections, as Vadim suggests, would only apply with large islands, where the page would otherwise get very lengthy e.g. Corfu, Sardinia, Corsica, Sicily etc. Finally, on this vexed layout question, my own principal aversion is to large white spaces (which look like errors), which are created by placing photos in the centre of a page rather than down the r/h side or in a gallery that doesn't fill the width of the page. As an example, take [4]. Don't you agree that looks much cleaner and neater than the Chios island page? --Athene of Lymington 15:52, 16 March 2016 (GMT)
I think, after this lengthy discussion, Vadim has the right idea. What about if we combine Chios, Chios Ports, and Anchorages of Chios Island into one and the break as needed, into small pages (no embellishments save the bare essentials - open to discussion) of North, SE, SW (or something in that line) regions? This will then been the model for other islands like Leros that have also been broken into sub pages. I agree with Gordon in that it will be good for the main island page to be as comprehensive as possible.
The [5] is much, much better than the Pakleni Islands Google map because it avoid those ugly large pins. Still I prefer by far the annotated chartlet of Lipsi.
Finally I give up on the Mavra Volia pic. And I do agree with Gordon's "aversion is to large white spaces". Alas his [6] was the worst example of this that I have seen, because if you widen the page to see the large row of pics large white space you get. Now in general I do prefer pics to be on the right side but they MUST be next to the text that refers to them. I have been using the {{hold vertical}} to guarantee this and that does create white spaces (but does not widens the page). In my humble opinion that vastly preferable to pics far away from the relevant text or no pics at all. Enough said on this. Cheers. --Istioploos 02:32, 17 March 2016 (GMT)
I don't want to prolong this unnecessarily, but I'm afraid I don't agree with the principle that photos 'MUST be next to the text that refers to them'. That makes it impossible to achieve a sensible page layout and is the reason why there isn't a magazine in existence that adheres to that principle. That's why picture captions were introduced in the first place, and readers are perfectly accustomed to viewing photos detached from the text. --Athene of Lymington 09:59, 17 March 2016 (GMT)
Sorry Gordon but once again I disagree with you. CruisersWiki is NOT a magazine but an online cruising guide. To read about an anchorage and then see it picture after several other anchorages may appeal aesthetically to an advertiser but is very confusing to the cruiser who is trying to plan a trip.--Istioploos 13:11, 17 March 2016 (GMT)
OK, Have a look at my edition of Chios: User:Vadim/Chios --Vadim 10:58, 17 March 2016 (GMT)
I like this better than the split Chios. If we are to use this as model for island pages I have a few quibbles but let us decide on the principle first before getting to the details. Could this be a model for even larger islands?--Istioploos 13:11, 17 March 2016 (GMT)
If I look at it on a small device (in this case a Nexus 7) it looks fine. However, on a larger screen (12 inches upwards) the Hold vertical creates huge white spaces, which look awful. I don't know how we can get round this, but it's a shame if the Wiki looks fine on a small device but amateurish on a large one. --Athene of Lymington 13:59, 17 March 2016 (GMT)
It's better than the original, isn't? I've got 24" screen but usually don't stretch window full width. I think that's not right. In typography they would render the whole article in two colums in this case.
Perhaps right side thumbnails could be smaller as we have now a dynamic image display feature (aka lightbox).
By the way is it possible that you add extra ":" when you putting your answer --Vadim 14:27, 17 March 2016 (GMT)
I suppose the real answer is text wrap round the photos - then it wouldn't matter which device you were viewing it on. For instance, the Hold vertical appears to do that on a small screen but on a larger one leaves the text hanging over a huge white space (which is why I've avoided it in the past). If one could insert photos and wrap text, it would solve both my and Vasilis' objections (assuming there was enough text to wrap, of course). I know how to do text wrap using DTP software but I'm not aware that you can do that on the Wiki - unless you know better? --Athene of Lymington 15:09, 17 March 2016 (GMT)
OK your turn then -- make a copy of Chios at DTP to show how it looks like . From my part I don't see a solution as the problem is that photos have more heigth than the corresponding section of text.
BTW the chart at User:Vadim/Chios works again, so you can see the POIs there --Vadim 15:53, 17 March 2016 (GMT)
Fist of all let say that no website looks good if I use the full display on my 26" screen but User:Vadim/Chios is still better than [7] (which look bad on any window less then 17"). However if you make your window a reasonable 15" or use iPads and the likes it does look very good. Now I will shut up on this issue since there is plenty of other work to be done on CruisersWiki. --Istioploos 16:46, 17 March 2016 (GMT)
I'm not avoiding the issue, but there's no point in trying a DTP solution if the Wiki won't support it. In any case, the text does wrap when viewed on a 7 inch screen, but the gaps open up as soon as you go to 12 inches and above, when the only solution IMHO is to either remove the Hold vertical or write more text. I've never had this problem, incidentally, with any of the Italy or Croatia pages - but then I'm not concerned if the text and photos don't line up since the photos are usually there for illustration rather than explanation. --Athene of Lymington 17:24, 17 March 2016 (GMT)
Gordon, you're welcome to show your version for Chios. BTW how do you know that some of your DTP tricks are not possible to implement here? --Vadim 19:01, 17 March 2016 (GMT)
OK, Vadim, I've posted a version of the Chios page in the Comments section of your own test page (although I have a feeling I may regret it!). I haven't touched the copy and I haven't tested the page on a smaller screen. However, with those two provisos it's a reasonable indication of how I would go about laying out such a page. I've sourced more recent photos as well, since some of the existing ones are too small to line up properly.--Athene of Lymington 12:30, 18 March 2016 (GMT)
I've now tested it on a 7 inch and a 10 inch screen and the gallery is, as usual, the main problem. If my understanding is correct, namely that you can devise a gallery template that automatically scales to the screen of the device you are viewing it on, then it definitely gets my vote. --Athene of Lymington 12:41, 18 March 2016 (GMT)
Do you mean User_talk:Vadim/Chios? That was easy... You need to add all these ports and anchorages to the article --Vadim 14:09, 18 March 2016 (GMT)
I'm obviously missing something here. If you're asking me again how I would do it: well, I'd do a separate page for each port with a link on the island page. That's what I've done for the Italian and Croatian islands (q.v.). I'd also include information about each anchorage on the nearest port page in line with previous practice, as I've said elsewhere - though I agree that a page summarising all the anchorages on an island is a good idea. Sorry if this isn't the answer you wanted.--Athene of Lymington 14:29, 18 March 2016 (GMT)
I see. If so, would you be able to make the ports as well? --Vadim 15:49, 18 March 2016 (GMT)
I can make a start. We're off on the French inland waterways on 1 April but I'm happy to do as many as I can by then. As you imply, it's not a short process: both Italy and Croatia took me the best part of three months. However, it's worth it if it helps towards greater uniformity of layout across Wiki pages. But can I have some feedback on my proposal for the Chios page before I start? I don't want to embark on all the port pages if you and Vasilis think the main page is going down the wrong track. --Athene of Lymington 16:06, 18 March 2016 (GMT)
Sorry I can't express myself properly. I meant only Chios for the moment. It would be great if you do it's ports (at least a few) as well. On one hand the current page is too long, but on another -- some ports there do not have that much of information. --Vadim 16:34, 18 March 2016 (GMT)
I think that we should use Vadim's User:Vadim/Chios as a starting point and not touch Chios until we are all pleased with User:Vadim/Chios . --Istioploos 23:54, 18 March 2016 (GMT)
Still, I'd like to see drafts of Chios port pages. I think we'be able to concoct some kind oh hybrid from the work we've done there --Vadim 09:05, 19 March 2016 (GMT)
Please take a look at an attempt (partial) to convert a page to use POIs, marks, and flexible "galleries" at User:Istioploos/Lipsi. My aim is to see if these issues are addressed. What I do not like is that unlike gallery the pics are of different height. I tried to experiment with the "WxHpx" and "xHpx" options but no joy. --Istioploos 21:46, 17 March 2016 (GMT)
It seems I've managed to find quite reasonable size parameters for "gallery" thumbnails. See User:Vadim/Sandbox#test1 --Vadim 15:44, 18 March 2016 (GMT)
That is terrific! Huge height dimension eh? What to you think of the User:Istioploos/Lipsi? --Istioploos 15:57, 18 March 2016 (GMT)
My thought is: aren't they a little bit big? --Vadim 17:04, 18 March 2016 (GMT)
The are 200px wide, we could make them 160px. The beauty of your approach is that we only need to change {{image}}. --Istioploos 23:54, 18 March 2016 (GMT)
Let's give it a t4ry. BTW that's actually about height, not width. --Vadim 09:01, 19 March 2016 (GMT)

Image right

I had a lengthy discussion about white space vs images. Some sections of text are too small compared to the corresponding images on the right. I've checked with the Wikipedia. They have 220px width for their thumbnails on the right. Should we try this setting as well? That's apparently would reduce the "white gaps effect". A dynamic image display feature (aka lightbox) is currently implemented for thumbnail images at this wiki, this should leverage the effect of reducing the size of thumbnails, as a reader could click at a thumbnail and the image in full size w/o leaving the page --Vadim 08:25, 22 March 2016 (GMT)

Let me think about this. The reason why we have the "Image right" default 345px is to line up nicely with the 350px of all the Info boxes. If we do decide to go with say 225px on the Info boxes and then 220 on "Image right" (no need for "Thup") to preserve aesthetic alignment, we may have problems with some Marina boxes being to narrow. --Istioploos 14:22, 22 March 2016 (GMT)
I know about the alignment arrangement. On the other hand they have 291px for infoboxes and 220px width for thumbnails and they are still alive! Apparently neither of these options is perfect --Vadim 14:57, 22 March 2016 (GMT)

RE: template:thumb. template:Image right was one of the 1st templates I wrote here. There is nothing wrong with it, but I think it's name is toooo long. So how is about to change it's name to thumb? --Vadim 08:46, 24 March 2016 (GMT)

I have thought and looked but still prefer the Infoboxes at 350px and the right image (whether we use {{Image right}}or {{thump}) at 345px. The reason for this is that many photos taken by port visitors provide good information about the port, sometimes more useful then the text. But thump has 291px as a default, so by the time one adds the size it becomes as long as Image right. --Istioploos 13:12, 24 March 2016 (GMT)
OK then: Template:Image right is simply renamed to Template:Thumb. Additionally Template:Thumb has a parameter align -- just like for horizontal alignment of the standard image link --Vadim 14:31, 27 March 2016 (BST)

Article structure

I made all the changes to User:Istioploos/Lipsi. Please take a look and comment. If there no other changes I will use this test page to replace Lipsi. --Istioploos 18:04, 19 March 2016 (GMT)
I think it's better to move all Last Visited & Details Checked (and updated here) to the bottom of the page as it was made at User:Vadim/Chios. They take too much space after each harbour/anchorage, while information they represent is less (put it mildly) important than in the text around them. I think the version I am suggesting is a reasonable compromise as every date/user entry there may have a list of locations visited, but it takes less space than the original version
Also you may notice that User:Vadim/Chios has a slightly different structure. I've made it after quite amount of thought and trial: it's more concise and I believe it's structure groups the thing better way --Vadim 18:41, 19 March 2016 (GMT)
I will look into this some more. When I first saw User:Vadim/Chios I liked that arrangement but I did not apply it to User:Istioploos/Lipsi thinking that it would be easier for somebody planning a cruise to see right under an anchorage when somebody was there.
I do like this new all inclusive version of Chios but I do have some minor points:
  1. While I do like the simpler header titles I am afraid that they make cause orphan links. Is there way to check that before changing them? (I assume this possible in my other points)
  2. Islands (was "Offshore Islands") and Passages I think are secondary and should be after anchorages
  3. While I am not very fond of the old "Eateries" I am afraid the for US cruisers "Catering" has a different meaning (outfits that will bring food to your party). How about just "Restaurants"? I do like "Provisioning" better then "Grocery & Supply Stores"
  4. I definitely like "History" under "Tourism"
  5. Should we keep "Internet/WiFi" or reduce it to just "Internet"?

--Istioploos 19:49, 19 March 2016 (GMT)

  1. orphan links -- a good point. This can be addressed by a bot;
    That is good, so we could go ahead. For my curiosity what would that bot be like?
    It looks like it could be done simply with "replace" bot. We'd just need to make a file with mappings between old-new headings and old-new anchor values --Vadim 19:05, 21 March 2016 (GMT)
  2. Islands and Passages. My thought: if these sections are small, then they'd fit into introductory part of an article. I wouldn't mind though if they go to the bottom
    I mildly prefer them after the important stuff but I could go either way.
    My idea that the top of a page is a sort of mid-scale "planning" area: charts, weather, ..., navigation, entry rules, etc. With each section you come closer to berth and anchorages. Then facilities, services, provisioning. When all things done you go for "eating out" and "tourism". Finally you make your notes at the "I've been there". A sort of how a day goes by. How is about that?
    The "islands" could give you alternative anchorages and berthing options. With "passages" you check how to reach the location. This make only sense if these sections are short: one line per island/passage.
    In the essence: I'd rather keep "islands" at the top, provided the information there is concise. As for "passages" I don't know. Perhaps they would feel themselves lonely at the bottom :) --Vadim 19:05, 21 March 2016 (GMT)
    Yes, but I think that Ports, Anchorages, and Islands are what you consider together when you plan a trip as you have pointed out . --Istioploos 13:17, 27 March 2016 (BST)
  3. These things are not always restaurants proper. Even McDonalds could go there. How is about "Eating out"?
    Good point. Let go with "Eating out"
  4. Yes, that makes less clutter at the top of a pages, yet gives a curious reader some more information on the place.
    Good, because I many pages that have created, particularly in Greece, I compiled the "History" form several diverse sources, a time consuming task. In general I am personally very interested in the history of places I plan to visit.
  5. I think just "Internet" would suffice. A person needs an access to the Internet, while "WiFi" is one of the methods of accessing the former. Another popular method is via mobile networks (GPRS, etc)
    I was under the impression the we meant Internet and WiFi services provided by the port or the marina and not cellular (mobile) like GPRS, G4 etc.
    You're quite right here, for GPRS, G4 etc. there is a "mobile" section. I meant that Internet and WiFi are not the separate categories or services. WiFi is only one alternative in getting access to the Internet, it is more like a subcategory in Internet services. I'd ask: "How do you get the Internet here?". You'd answer: "By WiFi!".--Vadim 19:05, 21 March 2016 (GMT)
    Ok, let us leave it as "Iternet". Nice touch the addition of "Mobile connectivity". --Istioploos 21:03, 21 March 2016 (GMT)
I've done some modifications at User:Vadim/Chios, so I'm happy to see if something could be improved. The most noticeable change is that almost all level 2 headings are in one word, which looks good with horizontal TOC. --Vadim 15:18, 20 March 2016 (GMT)
They look fine but 2 points: Are we to replace "==Comments==" with {{Comments}}? and I will put back "====Last Visited & Details Checked (and updated here)===" if we are to have it at the bottom sot that it is at the TOC. --Istioploos 20:41, 20 March 2016 (GMT)
You're right about "comments". Should we treat them more like {{page usable}} and remove from the TOC?
No problem with "Last Visited" to go to TOC, but the length of the heading kills. Any alternatives there? "Visited and Checked"? --Vadim 19:05, 21 March 2016 (GMT)
How about "Last Visited & Verified"? I want to avoid multiple visit entries. It should be in TOC, and if we follow the User:Vadim/Chios example we we should provide internal links (see what I did in Hisaronu_Korfezi_to_Teke_Burnu). Finally while I will I replace "==Comments==" with {{Comments}} I will leave it in the TOC for 2 reasons: legacy (with existing comments) & people may enter comments there rather then in the Talk page. --Istioploos 21:03, 21 March 2016 (GMT)
"Visited & Verified"? --Vadim 08:08, 22 March 2016 (GMT)
I suggested "Last Visited & Verified" to avoid eager users making an entry every time the visit a place. --Istioploos 15:57, 22 March 2016 (GMT)
What if we put your notification to the next line after the header rather than to the header itself. So the header is something like "Verified by", but the next line says "Date of member's last visit to Admin and this page's details validated:". --Vadim 20:19, 23 March 2016 (GMT)
That sounds good. Lets do it. See User:Istioploos/Lipsi --Istioploos 01:53, 24 March 2016 (GMT)
OK that's fine for me --Vadim 08:43, 24 March 2016 (GMT)

One more thing: Friends and Forum Discussions. They seem to be not quite useful, at least at the pages I've seen myself. I think Links and Last Visited could be suitable replacements for them. Should we rather get rid of them altogether? --Vadim 08:43, 24 March 2016 (GMT)

I think there are just a few pages that have any entries. If we can find them then we could move them as appropriate to either Links or Last Visited. --Istioploos 20:05, 24 March 2016 (GMT)

We have covered a lot of territory and we have agreed on many changes. I do think that between the experimental User:Vadim/Chios & User:Istioploos/Lipsi after we make them of same structure we will have 2 model island pages. But we also must make "To Do" check list so that we can write the bots to bring all island pages up to date. --Istioploos 21:03, 21 March 2016 (GMT)

If we can agree on changes in these 2 pages, we can move them in the right place, delete unneeded pages (for Chios), and then make an a "Boilerplate Island" to replace "Island Template:Island and Template:Island2. --Istioploos 20:05, 24 March 2016 (GMT)

Please see my note on "boilerplate", otherwise let's go for the rest --Vadim 10:02, 25 March 2016 (GMT)

Brown Icons

Yes, Navionics chart is too colored, so colorful icons which displayed at an article would be lost there (you may notice they use marina symbol for every anchorage). I found these brown ones are still quite recognisable if they put above a Navionis chart. Are you able to suggest any other options? --Vadim 09:50, 14 March 2016 (GMT)

Vadim, Let me know which icons from the existing ones in CruisersWiki that you want to use in the Navionics charts and I will make brown copies of them. --Istioploos 12:58, 14 March 2016 (GMT)
Not sure if it will help, but it might be instructive to take a look at MySea [[8]], which uses a very similar approach with a zoomable map and POIs in different colours. You need to register to get the full effect, then once you zoom into a port you can select different POIs from a menu. It's a nice approach, though at the moment MySea (like us) suffers from a certain lack of content. --Athene of Lymington 17:31, 15 March 2016 (GMT)

How is about putting INT-1 icons into POIs at wiki articles? Anyone is fancy to upload them here? --Vadim 19:05, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

Are you suggesting replacing the exiting POI icons or using the INT-1 icons for marking chartlets?--Istioploos 20:41, 17 March 2016 (GMT)
Not (yet), to start with instead of these ones: Harbour icon.png. On wiki pages --Vadim 14:04, 18 March 2016 (GMT)


I have noticed that the table of contents (TOC) in the Vector skin while does display as a sub menu lever 3 headers at least on my Mac Safari and o Firefox cannot click on them because they are separated by the drop down menu with a gap. This, of course, does not happen in MonoBook skin. For example of this see Sigacik Region. --Istioploos 18:41, 15 March 2016 (GMT)

Done. Enjoy! --Vadim 13:13, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

Sorry bot on my Mac. The gap persists with Vector. --Istioploos 13:55, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

You may need to clear the cache at your browser to see the effect --Vadim 14:52, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

I tried it again (after ~3 hrs), on the same page without clearing the browser's cache and this time it worked! Bravo. --Istioploos 16:58, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

Marina Info Template

The web parameter does not work. The example has the parameter but it does not display.

Also, if the address & phone are to go on the box so must the fax since the air is to eliminate ==Contacts==.

There is an extra "}" on the pic legend, see Template:Infobox_marina --Istioploos 01:38, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

Stray "}" is gone. For web and fax parameters please check with Template:Infobox marina/doc source. They do work for me.
BTW it's quite a lengthy table, some of the parameters are optional, how is about to make even more parameters optional there? --Vadim 12:13, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

Yes, "Fax" now works and the "}" is gone. "Web" still does not show see Template:Infobox marina/doc.

web parameter goes to the infobox title.
Sorry, I missed that. It does work. --Istioploos 13:51, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

Infobox zoom

As discussed all infoboxes have now zoom parameter, while mapzoom parameter is depreciated. zoom parameter sets zoom level at the chartlet link generated by infobox --Vadim 18:31, 19 March 2016 (GMT)

Ran a bot last night nd changed all mapzoom to zoom. --Istioploos 15:51, 22 March 2016 (GMT)
Well done! --Vadim 15:53, 22 March 2016 (GMT)

Marinas: inforbox table -> inforbox template

It looks like I've made a bot which is able to do it. Any objections to give it a try? --Vadim 15:00, 22 March 2016 (GMT)

None, go for it. --Istioploos 15:52, 22 March 2016 (GMT)
Done! --Vadim 17:32, 22 March 2016 (GMT)
Bravo! I checked Samos Marina. It put "Yes Yes" on "internet" and suppressed, as we had agreed, "WiFi". Also did not pick up the relevant info (Address, Fax etc) form the "Contact" section which should then be deleted. Maybe another bot? --Istioploos 17:52, 22 March 2016 (GMT)
  • Marina contacts are to be migrated by a separate script, as before.
  • WiFi vs Internet is yet to be fixed --Vadim 18:25, 22 March 2016 (GMT)
Marina contats -- done --Vadim 12:15, 24 March 2016 (GMT)
Looks good, well done! --Istioploos 13:26, 24 March 2016 (GMT)

Infoboxes: Internet vs WiFi

Another peculiarity or feature. If you put "wifi= Yes", you also get, automatically "Internet= Yes" which logical, but if put BOTH "internet= Yes" & "wifi= Yes" you get "Internet= Yes Yes". --Istioploos 12:54, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

I'd suggest to drop wifi completely and use internet with a proper wording, for example "internet= WiFi" --Vadim 13:37, 17 March 2016 (GMT)
I suggest that we drop "internet" instead, since "WiFi" implies it and most marinas do not have cable only internet.--Istioploos 13:51, 17 March 2016 (GMT)
Sometimes while WiFi is not awailable they have a PC in the office with a free/paid access to the Internet --Vadim 14:29, 17 March 2016 (GMT)

What actually people mean by putting internet=Yes and wifi=Yes? Does it mean that Internet is available via WiFi and also some other way? I have no a clue.

Perhaps internet= should be more verbose and wifi dropped altogether. Something like internet=Wifi, internet=paid PC at the office, or both etc. --Vadim 18:36, 22 March 2016 (GMT)

I like this. Maybe to begin with we drop the "WiFi" line and if it was "Yes" we change the "Internet" to Internet=Wifi, other wise we leave it as Internet=Yes to blank. --Istioploos 01:25, 23 March 2016 (GMT)
All "wifi" parameters are merged now with "internet" --Vadim 13:03, 27 March 2016 (BST)
Good I saw this. --Istioploos 13:19, 27 March 2016 (BST)

Island Pages layout

Right now we have to canditates for Exemplars of island pages: User:Vadim/Chios - a largish island, and User:Istioploos/Lipsi - small island. Here are some differnces between these 2:

  1. The heading ==Islands== in Chios is before == Navigation== while in Lipsi it is after ==Anchorages== (this is my preferense)
    As discussed, I've put islands section at the top of the page because islands should not be considered as a secondary category, mainly for 2 reasons:
    • They are to be taken into account for a leg planning, and the upper part of a page is an area there such an information is located;
    • They also could provide alternative berthing options or anchorages, but the latter sections could be quite lengthy, so the former function of the islands section would be affected negatively if it is located after berths and anchorages --Vadim 10:39, 27 March 2016 (BST)
  2. Ports in Chios are directly under ==Berthing== while in Lipsi they are the sub head ===Ports===
    The former makes ports/harbours directly accessible from the TOC, esp. in it's horizontal version where it's more like a menu of a page --Vadim 20:02, 25 March 2016 (GMT)
  3. In Chios there are separate sub headingd ====Water====, ====Electricity====, and ====Fuel=== under ==Facilities== whili in Lipsi they are combined in ===Fuel, Water, & Electricity====
    Water, electricity and fuel are quite different substances, there is no reason to put them in one bag. In Chios they are subheaders purely for cosmetic effect, which can be implemented a different way --Vadim 20:08, 25 March 2016 (GMT)
    Yes, but what they have in common is that in most ports are available at the dock or quay. --Istioploos 21:10, 25 March 2016 (GMT)
    After some reasoning I've come to this: water and electricity are could be classified as facilities of a harbour/marina along with shower, toilets, garbage disposal -- essentially you need them every day. While fuel, cooking gas and chandlers are rather supplies: you don't go to these places every day and they more often than the former ones could be located outside a harbour/marina. As a matter of fact , at "infobox marina" they are separate cells. --10:52, 27 March 2016 (BST)
    OK, you convinced me. Fuel is separate. --Istioploos 13:24, 27 March 2016 (BST)
  4. Finaly in Lipsi under ====Last Visited==== the places have internal links.
    That looks quite nice --Vadim 10:52, 27 March 2016 (BST)

Lets us decide or discuss these before we setle in Standard island page. --Istioploos 17:38, 25 March 2016 (GMT)

For islands which are too small to have a separate article, but which have some anchorages, or a berthing facility I'd suggest to put a short sentence about an island at the ==Islands== section, but list its anchorages, etc. at ==Anchorages== or ==Berthing== section. If an island has a harbour then it deserves a separate article. --Vadim 18:27, 15 April 2016 (BST)
Agree. --Istioploos 18:36, 15 April 2016 (BST)

Infoboxes and POI parameters

  • Since links to panoramio and GeoHack pages are now generated automatically I'd suggest to get rid of gallery and chartlet parameters completely there.
    Agree. --Istioploos 13:52, 27 March 2016 (BST)
    Done --Vadim 16:39, 27 March 2016 (BST)
  • A number of legacy infoboxes (tables) have Goggle chartlets embedded into them. How they are to be converted to infobox templates? Should we drop these chartlets from there and put some images instead just like we have now at all pages with "template" inboxes?
    I have been doing this: I dropped them from the Infobox and moved them in a separate image box (they do not fit into our image our image templates). Do you have a better idea how to put the "<googlemap>...</googlemap>" in an image template? --Istioploos 13:52, 27 March 2016 (BST)
    Let's discuss #Googlemap replacemet --Vadim 14:13, 27 March 2016 (BST)
So, I'm about to drop "<googlemap>...</googlemap>" from legacy infoboxes (tables) --Vadim 14:20, 29 March 2016 (BST)
Good! --Istioploos 14:39, 29 March 2016 (BST)
  • Remove mapzoom and wifi parameters as they are not used anymore.
    Yes. --Istioploos 13:52, 27 March 2016 (BST)
    Done --Vadim 16:39, 27 March 2016 (BST)
  • Template:Infobox country has map parameters, while other infoboxes use image for that (Wikivoyage also uses image for the same function). Any objections to rename it to image with imagetext as well?
    No objection. --Istioploos 13:52, 27 March 2016 (BST)
    Done --Vadim 16:39, 27 March 2016 (BST)
  • Make sure that docs for Template:Infobox country state that lat and lon parameters are the location of a capital while maplat and maplon are simply a centre of a map (chartlet) -- not of a country itself.
    This is tricky. As a cruiser I am mildly interested at the GPS location of a capital. But I am very interested to see a chartlet (nautical chart) of the whole country. Do you think that the Template:Infobox country addresses this? I think that it sort of does.
    By the way, I do find the option in all "Infobox" templates of using either the classic "DD|M.m|N/S|DD|M.m|E/W|" or "| lat= " and "| long= ". --Istioploos 13:52, 27 March 2016 (BST)
    Do you reckon it doesn't worth to have a capital location at all? If so, I wouldn't mind--Vadim 14:13, 27 March 2016 (BST)
    I do, as long as there is an option for lat lon. --Istioploos 14:52, 27 March 2016 (BST)
    The coordinates at many (all?) of these infoboxes are coordinates of respective capitals --Vadim 14:58, 28 March 2016 (BST)
    True because that what was asked (Wikipedia?) but often (when there is no map) I have changed the coords and zoom to show the whole country on the chartlet. --Istioploos 19:10, 28 March 2016 (BST)
  • Template:Infobox country: Do we still need news parameter while we have notes at the same time? --Vadim 15:44, 27 March 2016 (BST)
    Some people have used it. My understanding of it is to provide recent news while "notes" are to refer to what is in the box. (I have not used either of them). --Istioploos 19:10, 28 March 2016 (BST)
  • Infoboxes have web parameters while POIs have url. I'd suggest to rename the both to link.
    Yes. --Istioploos 13:52, 27 March 2016 (BST)
  • Some POI titles could have a reference to a page describing this POI in detail. I'm suggesting:
    • To generate a link to such a page automatically if possible;
    • To introduce an article parameter for a case when such a page and POI have different names.
    Very good idea. --Istioploos 13:52, 27 March 2016 (BST)
    Template -- done. POI conversion is under way --Vadim 18:14, 27 March 2016 (BST)
Newest version of Template:Poi while it works well with image it has introduced an artifact: it leaves behind an non existent template of the form {{XXX}} where XXX is the "|name= XXX" in the Poi. --Istioploos 18:44, 27 March 2016 (BST)
I think it's related to Template:HasText and this is due to some glitch in Mediawiki.
It looks like you see this when you're editing a page, but it has no any visual effect when such a page is shown for a reader. Am I correct? --Vadim 19:01, 27 March 2016 (BST)
Right, no visual effect (only under edit) --Istioploos 21:17, 27 March 2016 (BST)
Another artifact: it automatically adds a link without so specified. That is often an error with many similar port names in different islands. See Ikaria#Thermia it was linked to Kythos island! --Istioploos 21:17, 27 March 2016 (BST)
As they say: "It's not a bug, it's a feature". See above "generate a link ... automatically". I've made a workaround though: "article=no" can be used to suppresses link generation. But I wouldn't mind to drop this feature completely --Vadim 12:22, 28 March 2016 (BST)
I think that it is easier to put [[ around the name (few cases) then to explicitly "article=no" (most cases). At any rate I was going to ask you what "article" does, this answers me. --Istioploos 12:40, 28 March 2016 (BST)
No problem. I'll revert this change --Vadim 13:06, 28 March 2016 (BST)
  • Legacy coordinates in form |DD|M.M|N|DDD|M.M|E| are rather cryptic and confusing. Sould we convert them in POIs and infoboxes into more straightforward decimal lat and lon parameters?
    I think that both are useful but they should be either/or. --Istioploos 13:52, 27 March 2016 (BST)

Anything else? --Vadim 11:48, 27 March 2016 (BST)

Would like to add an option to {{Poi}} - "portofentry" because in some island pages there can be more then one port of entry and we should be able to mark it so in a prominent way. --Istioploos 14:45, 29 March 2016 (BST)
Done --Vadim 17:51, 30 March 2016 (BST)

Googlemap replacemet

To start with let's have a look at at the top of User:Vadim/Ambrakikos Gulf as an example --Vadim 14:08, 27 March 2016 (BST)

That is fine BUT one of my objection her as well as in Google maps is that in addition to the "+" and "-" zoom buttons it zoom when you are actually want to scroll the page and your cursor is on the map. This happens on my Mac in both Safari and Firefox. If you can disable this zoo/scroll we could use this Navionics (which by the way is real chart) instead of the Google. --Istioploos 15:01, 27 March 2016 (BST)
Actually zooming can be disabled, but I'd imagine quite a number of people (including myself and, I think, Gordon) would not mind to have this option enabled --Vadim 15:23, 27 March 2016 (BST)
OK, I've disabled scroll/zooming at Template:Chartlet. Let's see how it goes --Vadim 11:59, 28 March 2016 (BST)

Stubs (page templates)

I have revise stub pages for Islands, Large Coutry Regions, Large Regions, Small Coutry Regions, and Small Regions. I will appreciate any feedback before I use them to replace the old templates,--Istioploos 18:45, 20 April 2016 (BST)

I think an article should beging with a TOC and a suitable infobox. These big maps at the top of an article should go to infoboxes where possible, like in Italy. Also Template:Infobox_country has an interesting example --Vadim 17:02, 25 April 2016 (BST)

More on islands

Looking at Leros#Islands and Samos#Islands I see that


instances used there are rather cumbersome.

My vote is still for

* {{mark

combination, like at User:Vadim/Samos#Islands and User:Vadim/Leros. The 'islands' section itself is at the top of a page, so it has a good visibility. Each entry in this section should be a short sentence, so it becomes an overkill to list every sentence at a TOC.

By the way there is some inconsistency with this section content: while the original section's original title is "Offshore Islands" there are quite often "inshore islands" listed there. That's why there are some problems are there.

Every "offshore Island" should have a separate article. "Inshore island" features should go to other sections in the article. --Vadim 16:08, 21 April 2016 (BST)

Actually now these (Lipsi#Islands, Leros#Islands and Samos#Islands) are small and only refer to local islands (no offshore i.e. other nearby large islands). BUT I prefer {{Poi instead of {{mark because mark does not make an entry in the TOC. True in these 3 cases there is only one island but if there are moreqthen one I do want them in the to be in the TOC.
I agree that if "offshore" island are mentioned these should be just in the form * [[IslandX]]. --Istioploos 14:17, 22 April 2016 (BST)
You are confusing a table of content with an index. A table of content should contain sections of an article while an index of some publication lists every notable entity mentioned in this publication. Perhaps it's worth to open some printed pilot guide and see the difference.
"Islands" section should look similar a previous section -- "Passages", otherwise the whole thing looks rather slovenly. Also imagine that you have both: an island with a separate article and an "inshore" island, like User:Vadim/Santa_Eularia_des_Riu#Islands and User:Vadim/Santa_Eularia_des_Riu_2#Islands. While the 1st one looks OK, the 2nd one looks quite ugly. --Vadim 16:45, 25 April 2016 (BST)
I am not confusing "index" (used in books) and TOC used in this wiki. But each island described in a page (not linked to) should be in the TOC.
Islands are not passages. They either get their own page if large or if small must get a description and photo if available. We can shorten the description by moving all their anchorages to the anchorage section. --Istioploos 14:51, 26 April 2016 (BST)

POI and Infobox templates technical change

This change allows external tools to capture chartlet link coordinates more easily. It doesn't introduce visual difference with the previous version. The change was tested using Template:Tpoi. It goes live from now --Vadim 16:25, 16 May 2017 (BST)

Chartlets updated

The chartlets were updated with better Navionics attribution. NB: Only the standalone (available via a link) chartlet shows Navionics layer by default. The chartlets embeded into articles still display aerial images instead, otherwise Navionics attribution takes too much of chartlet's real estate. Still Navionics can be turned on there as well via the layer selector. --Vadim 15:52, 27 June 2017 (BST)

They do work rather well. I was wondering if we could provide a user settable option as to what overlays and bases of the chartlet to show on pages he/she visits. --Istioploos 16:45, 3 July 2017 (BST)
Personal tools
Friends of Cruisers Wiki