Template talk:Routes of Santiago de Compostela in France

Numbers in the Template

I am really glad to see this new template created, and have a question about its appearance. It seems to be organized with numbers and not according to groupings (such as geographical or the like) as is common in other templates such as World Heritage Sites in France. Is it still in process or was another format for this need what was in mind, @Ferclopedio? Thanks. FULBERT (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Since it is a navigation chart for a specific World Heritage site, I followed the official numbering given by UNESCO for the elements of the site which can be found here Ferclopedio (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferclopedio Thanks. It is a bit hard to follow and I am not sure it will help people to navigate it as it does not follow the conventions of other navigation templates. I wonder if there are ways we can group them, perhaps based on route or region or the like, that will make it more user-friendly? FULBERT (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I did notice that with the 78 elements it was getting a bit dense when doing it. But I don't know what would be the best way to group them, giving meaning to the World Heritage Site and not missing any. I don't know enough about the geography/history of France to put them together myself. Ferclopedio (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @FULBERT and Ferclopedio: I had the exact same boggled feeling on looking at the list, and immediately started thinking about how to make it more geographically/route based - I see I'm not the first. How about ignoring the official listing by regions, and grouping them according to the four main blue routes shown in the map on the right, as if you were making one of the journeys of pilgrimage yourself?

I realise that the template list doesn't match up with the places on the map, but I'm lucky to have travelled extensively in France and have been to almost half of all the towns & cities on the map, not necessarily the specific sites in the template. The article Routes of Santiago de Compostela in France groups the sites by region and numerically but they appear to be randomly dotted around, eg Nouvelle-Aquitaine: 1. Périgueux 19: Oloron-Sainte-Marie 24: Poitiers (see the location maps in these articles).

One suggestion might be to have a horizontal-type table (thinking aargh already) going from N.E to S.W with main destinations of Bordeaux, Périgeux, Moissac and Oloron like the four main blue routes as shown in the map. Note these are just the places on the map, and many are not in the UNESCO list: and that the great majority are in the centre and south-west. On the other hand, places on the map like Chartres Cathedral already have a UNESCO listing in their own right but aren't duplicated in the Santiago list. Hmmm.

Sambre - Amiens - Reims - Paris - Orléans }
Dieppe - Rouen - Caen - Chartres - Tours  }
Mont St-Michel - Angers                   } Poitiers - Saintes - Bordeaux        } 
Paimpol - Saint-Mathieu - Quimper - Nantes}
Strasbourg - Toul - Bars-s-Aube - Vézelay - Bourges }
Besançon - Chalons - Dijon - Sauvigny               } Noblat - Limoges - Périgeux } Ostabat
Lyons - Valence - Le Puy - Conques - Moissac                                      }

Nice - Arles - Saint-Guilhem - Toulouse }
Narbonne - Foix                         } Oloron

However, the UNESCO website also has that nice interactive map so it would be easy (hah!) or relatively trivial - if time-consuming - to match up the sites with the routes outlined above. I don't know the Pyrenees at all, maybe many of the sites are on passes through the mountains rather than all on the way to Oloron, as it were. Anyway, just a thought, or maybe it's a bit meta and would need too much explaining. MinorProphet (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MinorProphet@Ferclopedio I really like the idea of a table and grouping them via the 4 routes and think this may be helpful. I think a template like this one for the Celts may be used as a model? I would be happy to assist with this if either of your are interested in collaborating on it. FULBERT (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MinorProphet, FULBERT: The four routes you are talking about are, as you can see in the image (from left to right): Via Turonensis, Via Lemovicensis, Via Podiensis and Via Tolosane, and they have been called this way since the 12th century. The sites that fall right on the routes are easy to locate in the image, the problem arises with the sites that fall between two routes or away. Most likely, those sites are historically and religiously related to one of the routes but, without the necessary knowledge, relating it to one of them -or grouping them separately- will be entirely speculative.

Also keep in mind that this navigation box is about the UNESCO World Heritage Site called Routes of Santiago de Compostela in France, I mean that only the places in the list of this site must appear in the navbox. The places in the site that are also World Heritage Sites on their own (like Mont-Saint-Michel), must appear in it as part of the site, but any other World Heritage Site in France (like the Chartres Cathedral) must not appear in it. Ferclopedio (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have found an image with the branches of the four main routes and with a fifth route near the Pyrenees (Via Pyrenean Piedmont) that may help: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Caminos_de_Santiago_Francia_(por_grupos).svg Ferclopedio (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for your swift and helpful replies, @Ferclopedio and FULBERT: That Spanish map is great and much more relevant. I have no experience in editing .svg files, but the specifically Spanish names can (in theory) be edited for French ones. I agree with your other comments: it should only contain the Unesco sites in the list. If you both quite like the the idea of grouping the sites by Via or Camino, what's the best way to go about it? If there are sites 'off the beaten track' well, I'm sure we can reach some mutually satisfactory placement, even if it's just 'less than half-way to the next major route' to begin with. I speak French fairly well, I'm happy to go do some historical research if needed.

Perhaps we could start a draft page with the original template/navbox and migrate the entries into a table once we've decided how it should be arranged, possibly into the five Ways. If either of you has experience with tables (the visual editor is meant to be good with them, never tried it), then that would be great - otherwise it's planning something like the following and then some 70 dreaded rowcol params which I would not enjoy:

1. Sambre - Amiens - Reims - Paris - Orléans }
4. Dieppe - Rouen - Caen - Chartres - Tours  }
5. Mont St-Michel - Angers                   } 2. Poitiers - Saintes - Bordeaux} 
6. Paimpol - Saint-Mathieu - Quimper - Nantes}
7. Strasbourg - Toul - Bars-s-Aube - Vézelay-Bourges}
9. Besançon - Chalons - Dijon - Sauvigny            }8. Noblat-Limoges- Périgeux} 3. Ostabat
10. Lyons - Valence - Le Puy - Conques - Moissac                                }

but that would need to be reversed anyway eg

1.Ostabat {  2. Bordeaux - Saintes - Poitiers { 3. Orléans - Paris - Reims - Amiens - Sambre 
                                              { 4. Tours - Chartres - Caen - Rouen - Dieppe

Getting the order in a table from SE to NW on any given Way might be a bit challenging: but since the Unesco website list gives the co-ordinates, they could possibly be transferred to one or more Commons maps which can be linked to an {{anchor}} in text or a table - here's one I made earlier with clickable links... User:MinorProphet/Draft subpages/HMS Cyclops (1839)#Combined operations - edit to see how it's done. The entries don't have to be in any order, the mediawiki software just puts them in the right place on the map. There may better ways. Finally, I'm around tomorrow but shall be away from Monday am to Thursday pm next week although I'll have my laptop with me. Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MinorProphet, I think you are making it too complicated, remember that we are talking about a navigation box and it has to be kept simple and should facilitate the navigation between its articles. What you say about making a table, or ordering its elements by coordinates, or ordering them like if you were doing the route, or making a clickable map, is more of a job for the article itself than for the navigation box.

In my opinion, if grouping by Via is the best approach, the only thing to do is to write the five groups in the navbox and relocate each site under the list it belongs, ordered alphabetically by the town in which they are located or by the number that UNESCO has given to the site:

  | group1 = Via Turonensis
  | list1  =
  ...
  | group2 = Via Lemovicensis
  | list2  =
  ...

Ferclopedio (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferclopedio: You are quite right, I've been over-complicating things. It's a habit of mine. Alphabetical order by Via would certainly work. MinorProphet (talk) 09:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferclopedio @MinorProphet I was thinking about this again, and wonder if anybody has done any work on trying to make this happen according to the 4 ancient paths. If not, I will take a try of it. I do not want to begin this if somebody else has tried redrafting this. FULBERT (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FULBERT: Good to hear from you again. I haven't made any attempt at re-drafting the template. Although I have been busy with other things, I'd be happy to help/make suggestions from the sidelines if you were to have a go. The place on the list I visited most recently was Amiens Cathedral - a simply vast edifice. None of the photos of the awe-inspiring interior quite does it justice. MinorProphet (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FULBERT I haven't made any attempt either. If you go for it, I think the map with all the branches of the five ancient paths I sent earlier will be very useful. Ferclopedio (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferclopedio @MinorProphet OK, I went through the 71 entries and categorized them according to the 4 ancient paths through France. Can one or both of you proof this based on the maps in the UNESCO declaration Routes of Santiago de Compostela in France - Map of inscribed property Clarification / adopted on the slides and website here? Some of them are not exactly on the paths, so I used the map submitted on the original French nomination file here. Also, I left the small numbers to make sure we do not miss any of these. I tried them after the names (see the first two in the Le Puy Route, though even if we added parentheses with them after the names themselves, I think they are distracting so recommend removing them. I did not alphabetize them in each group, keeping them as numbered, though think they do need to be alphabetized (though not sure if by their name or their city would make most sense). I welcome some feedback and help with this before I personally do any more with it as I need fresh eyes. FULBERT (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MinorProphet @Ferclopedio I just saw this template for the Camino in Spain and think it may help guide our work here. FULBERT (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FULBERT I made a visual edit in the titles and added a subsection for the sectors of Le Puy.

In a first quick review of some of the sites I moved three:

Soulac-sur-Mer -> Turonensis

Le Buisson-de-Cadouin -> Podiensis

Saint-Avit-Sénieur -> Podiensis

I agree to remove the numbers (they are distracting) and alphabetize by city. Ferclopedio (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferclopedio @MinorProphet Nice tweaks and adding the subsection. I will remove the numbers (in order) to ensure we did not miss any. Will also add another section on the Le Puy Route for Monuments to balance the Sections section. If one of you can then alphabetize next? FULBERT (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferclopedio @MinorProphet I think we should alphabetize by city, along with adding any missing cities in the process. FULBERT (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ordered! Ferclopedio (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferclopedio @MinorProphet I think this looks great now. Nice work, everybody! If anything, it is now clear where we need more articles written! Thanks, all. FULBERT (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @FULBERT and Ferclopedio: I've been AFK for a few days, I'm hoping to get up to speed tomorrow. PS Is it cheugy to appropriate gamer terms if not gamer? I don't think online Hearts counts... Maybe you could ping me on this one? MinorProphet (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FULBERT and Ferclopedio: Fantastic work! Well done. The template looks much more approachable and attractive now. The remaining Vias could certainly benefit from their own article... I also agree with the removal of the numbers, they were somewhat distracting. I wonder how the Unesco team assigned them in the first place. Personally I hate red links, but I have actually written a few articles because of them in templates etc. Is there a case for making red links for the non-existent articles, possibly using interlanguage links ({{ill}})? - I imagine there are a number of existing French WP articles, I'll have a look. This might initially swamp the blue links, but one of the more rewardings things is seeing a template gradually filled up to completion. MinorProphet (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MinorProphet, Thanks. Interlanguage links are very useful in articles (I use them often), but wikipedia guidelines don't allow red links in navigation boxes, nor using interlanguage links. Even having unlinked items is an exception to the rule, since the navigation box refers to a closed set of items. Ferclopedio (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]