Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microformats
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Species discussion
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)
[edit] Rational?
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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] Help
Can anyone help with this Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Referencing_geo_coordinates. Thanks -- PlaneMad|YakYak 15:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Naming
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)
- 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)
-
- 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)
[edit] Question
Who makes a microformat and who decides what is the accepted standard for a particular microformat? Remember 02:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)