Does the Arctic Archipelago in northern Canada qualify as a cold desert region? If not, why? Nicholas GunnThewayofthegunn 20:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
perhaps the deserts here should be grouped by continent or other like geographic entity? 22.214.171.124 15:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm working on a re-write of the desert template here. I'd appreciate some assistance. Just fix it yourself or leave a comment on the page below the template. Thanks. :) vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You've all done some nice work here. I added the template to the Black Rock Desert page. Ikluft (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I reverted a fellow editor's change so I owe an explanation here. A change was made to force Template:Deserts to always collapse, with the reason being because it's so large. It isn't a problem that the navbox is large - they're intended for navigation and there are a lot of related places to navigate to. But it can be a confusing problem for readers when navboxes don't behave consistently - it makes Wikipedia look inconsistent to them. WP:NAVBOX says autocollapse is the expected behavior for navboxes. On pages with multiple navboxes, such as Great Basin and Black Rock Desert, they'll all collapse automatically anyway unless specifically given a parameter not to. However, on pages with just this navbox, especially Deserts but also any of them with no other navboxes, it's part of the expected presentation for it to be expanded. A single collapsed navbox is not a common sight on Wikipedia. We have to take the wider view when editing templates and consider as many as possible of the pages which use it. If the size of the navbox is determined by discussion to be a big issue, then a better solution would be to break it up into templates of Deserts by continent, rather than be inconsistent with other navboxes. Ikluft (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I just restored the Rangipo Desert and Kaʻū Desert, which had been lost in several recent edits. Apparently two editors each wanted to reorg the template. One lumped together Australia, New Zealand and Hawaii and renamed the section Oceania. Another renamed it back to Australia and deleted the non-Australian entries. I renamed the section from Australia to Australia and Oceania, and re-added Rangipo Desert to it, and renamed another section to North America and Hawaii, and added Kaʻū Desert back to it, as in a previous configuration of the template.
This isn't necessarily right, certainly not perfect. And neither this nor several other previous configurations are wrong either. I can see the issue here looks like several editors are trying to deal with conflicting issues of formatting the template (i.e. not having any more sections with just one entry) and geographic grouping. Antarctica already stands out as having only one entry. New Zealand and Hawaii each would have one as well. And the problem people are having is where to put them. This seems like a good compromise, except that the title of North America and Hawaii is long so it squeezes an already-large template, tempting people to reorg it again.
Another possibility would be to make a miscellaneous category of Antarctica and Pacific, moving the New Zealand and Hawaii entries in there. Though that would solve the formatting issue of having Antarctica with just one entry, I think it makes less sense than the current layout. Nobody really thinks of Hawaii along with Antarctica in any other category. And New Zealand only associates well with Antarctica as the base from which research expeditions to it are made, not for geography.
Yet another option would be to add a new section called Pacific and put the Hawaii and New Zealand entries there. It would have only those 2 entries.
So while we figure out the best way for format the template, let's be careful not to lose any entries in the process. Ikluft (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I've removed Tule Desert (Arizona) & Tule Desert (Nevada) from the template: these are two minor features, just barely notable, and their articles are barely stubs. Cluttered the template, imo. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
This template has a serious problem -- it mixes major and minor deserts, with no real indication to the user as to which is which. For instance, in North America, the template lists the Sonoran Desert and the Nk'mip Desert as of apparent equal rank -- but the Sonoran encompasses an area of 311,000 km², in two countries and five states, while the Nk'mip is an invented name for a small, dry area in British Colombia, that isn't really a desert!
The List of deserts actually does a better job in making the hierarchy of deserts clear. We need something similar (perhaps the same?) for this template. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC), Consulting Geologist, Arizona and New Mexico (USA)
Is there a syntax to collapse this template for a single page? I couldn't find one, but I don't know template syntax, really... TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is the so-called "Middle East" not listed as part of Asia where it belongs; and rather singled out? Lostinlodos (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Deliblatska Peščara is not actually a desert. Just see the photos. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Some Deserts ie Okanagan Desert and Carcross Desert have been removed from the category:Desert and the categories Deserts of Canada/Yukon deleted. The initiator could have discussed the matter here. See the discussion page Hugo999 (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if this category is really encyclopedic, an/or helpful to the reader. All of the listed examples are on Mars; by any reasonable definition, the entire planet is a desert. As are our Moon, Venus, Mercury etc etc. Probably this section should be deleted. Thoughts? --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)