Template talk:Geobox Mountain Range

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Very nice!! 2 Disambig link 3 Mountain ranges crossing international boundaries 4 Title Icon 5 Fields missing from display 6 Metric / Imperial conversion errors 7 Odd word wrap in Rocky Mountains

[edit] Very nice!!

I'm not sure that anyone will ever be able to tell the lowest point of a mountain range, though, because it will (almost always) be at the boundary of the mountain range, and that is not a precisely defined boundary. hike395 19:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if no-one uses it it can be simply removed, I don't think this is the final version of the template. I just put in some fields for a start. The idea behind the lowest point was to give some idea what the range of elevations in the range is. What other fields could/should be there? Something like average slope inclination? Ideas are welcome. --Caroig 19:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Something about highest (or lowest) mountain pass, perhaps? That would be more easy to verify.

I like this template so much, I just put it into Sierra Nevada (US) and Rocky Mountains. Again, because of the boundary problem, I can't find a verifiable area for either range. But, the length of the range is easier to verify. Can I suggest substituting "length" for "area" ? (I'm too intimidated by the qif stuff to edit the template, I'm afraid I'll break it!) hike395 19:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the template to include width and range, plus U can add length_orientation and width_orientation (which is a text field containing e.g. North-West). If there are some fields U don't use, they don't get displayed so I guess we can keep area too. Here, in Europe, most ranges have been mapped in great detail and their geological boundaries are usually strictly given, co it makes sense at least here. I opted for GPS as it is shorter and doesn't take up so much space in the left part of the box. I frequently break the layout completely when dowing some chnges on it. This a template in development so it doesn't do much harm. – Caroig 20:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The coordinates might not come from GPS, so I thought it might be misleading. Looks like it fits. This is really great!

We can leave area in. Do you have verifiable lowest points of mountain ranges in Europe? I don't think we do in the US. hike395 05:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I don't think one could find one single lowest point in Europe either. I guess, however, there might be something like average elevation of surrounding area, yet I don't know how to indiacte this. Template: Infobox Mountain uses Prominence, could something similar be used for ranges? – Caroig 07:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The source I like to look at for range information is http://www.peakbagger.com ... For example, see [1] for the Sierra Nevada, or [2] for the "Czech-Moravian Hills". Peakbagger lists Prominence for individual peaks, but nothing like that for whole ranges. (They do list area, I see, although it is imprecise and includes non-mountainous regions). hike395 07:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Later: I really appreciate all of the work you (Caroig) are putting into this -- I just don't understand the template stuff. hike395 08:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I like it, so I'll try it out on a few of BC's ranges, top-level hierarchy (e.g. Coast Mountains and low-level (e.g. Kokanee Ranges, Cayoosh Range and see what pans out and what issues there might be. One thing that pops to mind, which I've been wrastling with in Category:Mountain ranges of British Columbia, is quite often there are ranges which are not part of a parent range, but are part of a plateau, i.e. a named plateau, e.g. Cariboo Plateau which includes the Marble Range, Clear Range and maybe a few other small ones in the Quesnel Highland; "Highlands" are plateau-like areas but generally mountainous, so I'm putting them in the mountain ranges cat, by the way (Tagish Highland, Tahltan Highland, Quesnel Highland, Shuswap Highland and Okanagan Highland are the main ones in BC (the term was invented by a Washington state geographer for the Okanogan Highland, as it's spelled on the US side of the border). The point of this digression is that the part of the table that's titled orography ("measurement/geography of mountains") is necessarily going to have some plateaus named, when it's ranges like the Marble, Clear, Camelsfoot, Quanchus and others (the latter two are on the Chilcotin Plateau and the Nechako Plateau, respectively, rather than the Cariboo Plateau; which itself is a "child" of the Fraser Plateau, and that is a "child" of the Interior Plateau, although the latter isn't much larger, if at all....).Skookum1 05:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand what feature you're suggesting, but is it that the field on the left of the table read "Plateau" instead of "Range" when required? It would be possible to include an extra field, say "range_type", where you would define what should be displayed instead of the generic "Range", which would remain the default value if "range_type"'s not defined. – Caroig 07:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I'm too much of a rookie with this template; I filled it out for Cayoosh Range but didn't strike/edit-out the asterisked title; but even after that once I'd edit-outed them (inline comment markings with the !-- ) the infobox came up, but it'sformat was all screwy on the preview; I didn't do it as an edit; so I reverted what I'd done - never experiment on an article page, I know, but I thought this was like automatic steering, just point it and go; but for someone who'd care to fix what I did the edit linked here contains all relevant data that I know of on the Cayoosh Range. Obviously I'll wait until I see one of these things filled out before I try it again...I can pretty much do all of BC once I know what's going on (I know the terrain very well, and also the online sources....).Skookum1 08:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I see, simply copy paste the blank table and leave the fields which you don't want to display empty (i.e. with nothing after the equal sign) or you might erase them completely though I don't recommend this as it is easier for subsequent edits when the empty fields are left in the template and may be simply completed. The text headed Legend is only a legend and not intneded to be used for editing! – Caroig 10:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I put in the infobox to the Cayoosh Range article using the data you provided, hope I copied it correctly. I suggest you read the About section for this article where you might found some information on how to fill in information in this template. It is, however, not aimed to template novices. Just for you information, the template automatically wikilinks most inserted data (It has a drawback that if the article doesn't exist the link will be ugly red. I might add code which would first chech whether the article actually exist and put in a wikilink only then, on the other side, it helps you create new articles.) All units are automatically converted to from metric/imperial so the only thing you need to insert is a single, unformated (no commas!) number, either metric (then e.g. length = 100) or imperial (length_imperial = 100). Most multiple fields allow you enter more of them than the blank template indicates, the Units field can be also Unit1, Unit2 and Unit3, and it's easy to encode even more, with regions the template supports numbers up to 12, but it can be easily enlarged when needed. – Caroig 11:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig link

Heya. The Infobox is great, some nice features, but just a little note it doesn't seem to account for Disambig links. For example on the Owen Stanley Range article, all of the regions and highest point go to a disambig page, unless you add explitly define the page. is there a way to not have to do this? Nomadtales 03:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

ignore. just read the helpful template page and saw the bit about "!". cheers Nomadtales 03:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mountain ranges crossing international boundaries

What to do about mountain ranges that cross international boundaries where the subdivisions are named differently between the countries? For example, Hohe Tauern is within Austria and Italy but the subdivisions are states in Austria but provinces in Italy. I tried mixing state and province but the template ignored the province field. Another example would be Cascade Range which is in Canada and the USA. RedWolf 03:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a possibility to redefine the State(s) or Region(s) text. So you might set:

• state_type = States and regions, or, with appropriate links:
• state_type = States and [[|Regions of Italy|regions]]

The provinces in Italy are subdivisions of regions, so if states are used for Austria corresponding administrative units should be used for Italy. The template supports following fields for administrative (sub)divisions in descending order: Country, State, Region and District. These are genereic names which get displayed unless the text is redefined (using appropriate _type field). There's no province field, so it can't be displayed. – Caroig 09:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title Icon

How about some info on the icon which is added to the page automatically at the top? BTW, the first time I saw that, I thought a template had been vandalized. I actually didn't recognize what it was right away. RedWolf 22:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I added the icon was to distinguish between Template:Geobox Mountain Range and Template:Geobox Mountain so that one would clearly see what the box relates to. Your reaction tells me that the icon graphically not very good, it should really represent a mountain range. It's no definitive solution, I'm just experimenting with it. There should definitely be some sort of info on the icon, should I also change the graphics or remove the icon completely? – Caroig 00:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not immediately recognize what it was, so I think it needs some refinement. Also, I would suggest putting it on the far right rather than the far left on the title row. However, I am wondering whether this is setting some sort of precedent by putting icons onto the title row. Is it something that the Wikipedia community in general would approve of? I don't think I have seen it done before. RedWolf 00:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat opposed to a little icon: isn't it obvious that an article is about a mountain range (from the first 1-2 sentences of the article) ? hike395 03:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's out. As I wrote before, the idea was to make some diference between the Template:Geobox Mountain Range and Template:Geobox Mountain and other future templates for mountain related fetures. I admit the graphics is rather bad so I removed it for now. Neither have I seen in it before (apart the small icon in Template:Taxobox) but one can come up with proposals (which can be turned down, of course). – Caroig 08:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fields missing from display

I've used this template for Western Ghats and notice many of the fields such as woods, state4, state5 etc are missing from display. Any reasons why? =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, Geobox Mountain Range was one of the first in the series I created and since then the Geoboxes got some new functions, the code was generally cleaned so it was time to do the same to this template as well. These changes are not yet marked in the legend I didn't have the time to update them.

Unfortunatelly, the clean-up caused some regressions. The extra state fields have been fixed, sorry for that. As of woods, this field was removed completely. I checked whether it had been used and seemed not to be that case. Anyway, there's now a more powerful biome field which can be indexed too and can be used for any type of biomes (ecosystem etc. ) that occur in the range. Once again, my apologies; when I removed some fields form any of the templates in the series (overall, they were two or three such fields) I always fixed all affected pages, I sort of missed this one. – Caroig (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metric / Imperial conversion errors

The template is not converting approximate values correctly, such as for the length of a range, which is always approximate to the 10s or 100s digit. If I enter "length_imperial=700", that should be converted to 1100 km, not 1127 km as it does now (which is an erroneous use of too many significant figures). I'm not sure how to fix it given the current design of the template. A easy solution would be to eliminate the automatic conversions from this template, which would also eliminate the need for separate metric/imperial versions of it, and just use the {{Unit mi}} and related conversion templates (as are needed with {{Infobox mountain}}). These unit templates properly handle approximate values by using negative values for the rounding parameter.

If there were an easy way to add a rounding value (maybe like this: "length_imperial=700-2", for rounding to the 100s digit), that might be the easiest fix. But right now this template looks really strange with its wrongly-precise conversion if you enter the length parameter (see e.g. Cascade Range or Sierra Nevada (US) ). Thanks for looking into this. --Seattle Skier (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do read Category:Geobox first, you'll find all necessary information on rounding there. – Caroig (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion: how about getting rid of _imperial and _metric entirely, and having users of the template use Template:Unit ft or Template:Unit m template directly? (Those are great templates, by the way!) That way, there is just one standard unit entry method across all of WP. hike395 15:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would be quite a substantial change to the code and I'm afraid to the disadvantage of the common editor. The Geoboxes are designed to ease-up the editor's work as much as possible. Why should they bother looking up conversion templates? Most editors would put in their prefered unit and it would create just the situation most infoboxes (not only Geoboxes) try to prevent - having different units in every infobox, some with both metric and imperial figures, some with just one of them … – Caroig (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Although you say do read in bold letters, there is still not sufficient info on Category:Geobox to figure out how to use the "_round" parameter. Where do any of those parameters go? How about an example? You seem to think that this is so obvious that I should have figured it out on my own, but every single use of {{Geobox Mountain Range}} which I have seen has the same rounding errors visible. So no one else on Wikipedia knows how to use it either. Please provide more detailed examples for such a complicated template.

After some experimentation, I have now discovered the correct way to use the rounding: I need to add an extra line such as "| length_round=-2" to the template. This is not at all obvious, and it is clear why no one else has figured it out. Please consider adding more detailed info to the examples. Or maybe I'll try to add some info myself right now. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a thing I asked the users of Geoboxes for a hundred times. To help me make the documentation clearer. Beacause I, as the developper, am obvisously never able to write the legend from the point of view of common user. I'm well aware the documenation is not complete at all. And I'm real greatful if you help me improve it. Thank you very much for your edits indeed.

However I would prefer this explanation to be more general as this feature (rounding) is shared by all Geoboxes. Each and every unit in them can make use of the _round parameter. In this Geobox, you can also have area_round, highest_elevation_round … I think it might be better to have more detailed, clearer documenation in the Category:Geobox (when it says there exist the _round, we might want to have an example, using a paramater that is shared by all Geoboxes, e.g. area) and not repeat this explanation in the documementation specific for every Geobox. I also prefer not putting the extra parameters in the blank templates, because they get too lengthy. The idea is to have the basic fields in it only and only list the extra parameters in the third column of the Doc page.

This is just my view, I prefer a solution common to all Geoboxes. Once again, thanks a lot for your edits. And I apologize for my previous point. I get too many question asking about stuff that is in the documenation. But I admit this is also partly caused by the documentaion not being complete or clear at all. – Caroig (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh, there's a big problem here . . . I had written a lengthy explanation and question here yesterday (just after editing the docs), but it has vanished! I previewed it many times, but then it looks like I must have forgotten to save. I'll try to write the main points again now, and remember to save it this time!

The main thing I was asking is if there is some way to program the templates so that the default rounding is not always 0 for certain parameters. Basically, if a user enters a length as "3456", then the rounding would be set to 0, but if one enters "3500" then the rounding is set to 2, etc. That way, there would be no need for the user to specify the rounding parameter. This would be immensely helpful, because right now there are many articles using Template:Geobox Mountain Range which have rounding errors in them. There are even more articles using Template:Geobox River with such errors, see e.g. Amazon River for a particularly bad example with 3 rounding errors in the geobox.

By modifying the templates to auto-round, no one would have to go and manually edit 100s of articles just to fix the rounding errors (which I realize are a relatively minor issue, although an issue which bothers me every time I see it). How difficult is it to implement auto-rounding based on the number of zeros at the end of a value? Of course, in some cases "3400" may mean exactly 3400, and so then the user would have to manually set the rounding back to 0 in order to get an accurate conversion. In other words, the default value would be auto-set to 2 in that case, but could be over-ridden by using "| length_round=0" if necessary. For lengths and widths, the maximum auto-set rounding should be 2 even for values with 3 zeros like 6000 km (which should convert to 9600 mi, not 10000 mi), but the rounding could go as high as 4 or 5 for other parameters like area or river discharge which often have very large values.

Please let me know if this is possible to implement. And thanks for all your hard work on these very nice templates, Caroig. --Seattle Skier (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious which numbers in the Amazon article have rounding errors in the Geobox. VerruckteDan 05:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There are three main errors: Length (6,400 km should be 4,000 mi, not 3,977 mi), Watershed (7,050,000 km² should be 2,720,000 mi², not 2,722,020 mi²), and Discharge (219,000 m³/s should be 7,730,000 ft³/s not 7,733,912 ft³/s). The elevation value would be better if it said 5,170 m (16,960 ft), but at least it is not as bad as the others.

Please see the article on significant figures for an explanation of why those are wrong, especially the section halfway down labeled "Spurious accuracy". The basic rule is that if the converted value has more significant figures (i.e. leftmost nonzero digits) than the original value, then it may be displaying false accuracy. Of course, if the length of the Amazon were exactly 6,400 km, then converting it to 3,977 mi would be correct despite this general rule. But it is very obvious that the given length is an approximate value, and even more obvious that the watershed area and discharge are very rough approximations. So they should not be converted to highly precise Imperial values. --Seattle Skier (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point but I'm afraid this (rounding precision based on number of zeros) is impossible to implement given the very limited capabilities of the template engine. Even if it were possible, there would have to be a way to tell the engine a figure that looks rounded isn't in fact rounded (e.g. when 50 km is the real length). Anyway, I wouldn't call this behavior erroneous. As of setting higher rounding precision by default for some parameters … not all rivers are that large as the Amazon. Most of the rivers that make use of the Geobox River template are short and rounding precision 0 fits very well with them.

Any figure that uses auto conversion in the Geoboxes can be modified by the _round parameter, a feature which no other infoxes has. I don't think it is that difficult to type in the few extra parameters. – Caroig (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, one of the best features of the Geobox series is the ability to customize through use of parameters like "_round" "_label" and "_type". Appropriate precisions should be set in the individual articles. VerruckteDan 23:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd word wrap in Rocky Mountains

Take a look at the Geobox there: notice how the "-" separates from "coordinates"? I'm not sure how to fix this: can it be fixed? Thanks! hike395 14:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I see. Unfortunatelly, this "bug" is Internet Explorer related, it has nothing to do with the Geobox itself. There's a " " space between the minus sign and the "coordinates" word which should prevent that, I tried to add a HTML property on the "- coordinates" piece of text which tells the browser not to break line as well, but IE simply ignores both. Some workaround will be needed. I also discovered IE ignores the font size setting in the Geobox. – Caroig (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried using {{nowrap}} on the line, and it seemed to work. Is it because you put a space between "white-space:" and "nowrap" in the span perhaps? hike395 02:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)