Template talk:Infobox mountain/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Text size

Can someone please lower the text size as in Template:Infobox Country? Thanks. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer that we keep 100% text size, - its an accessibility issue. Andy Mabbett 12:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

strange to hear that 100% font size would be better accessibility. With current settings, when looking from smaller screens (and we talking here not only computer screens, but all other devices supporting web browsing) the page main content is suffocated between left-hand navigation and right-hand side infobox. not to mention that infobox is loaded first (=delayed time to read article) infobox should be for article not other way around. (infobox just takes together in different format the info article provides)

also accessibility would expect that user/reader can define image size. And if we really talk about accessibility then the table widths wouldn't be in pixels

90% font and 250px with would improve the "imprtance" division --TarmoK 22:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing strange about respecting a user's preferred text size. And no, table widths should not be in pixels. Andy Mabbett 22:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well the Country infobox has like 4000 parameters so I can see why you would need a smaller text size for that beast. I'm happy with the current text size for this template so I am against making this change. RedWolf 15:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

hCard microformat

{{editprotected}}

Please add the mark-up for an hCard microformat, per WP:UF, by adding:

• class="vcard" to the outer container

• class="fn org" to the "Name" table row.

• class="label" to the td containing {{{Location|}}}.

• class="note" to each of the rows for Elevation, Range, Prominence, Type, Volcanic Arc/Belt, Age, Last eruption and First ascent.

Please also move the documentation, interwikis and categories to a /doc page, so that I can describe the above. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 12:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please double-check that it works. CMummert · talk 14:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks good, and seems to work, but the documentation still needs to go in a separate page, at /doc Andy Mabbett 15:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, too. I've now updated the documentation. Andy Mabbett 12:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Detail for microformat markup

{{editprotected}}

Could we replace

|- 
{{#if:{{{Location|}}}|
{{!}} style="border-top:1px solid #999966; border-right:1px solid #999966; background:#e7dcc3;" {{!}} Location
{{!}} class="label" style="border-top:1px solid #999966;" {{!}} {{{Location|}}}

with

|- class="adr"
{{#if:{{{Location|}}}|
{{!}} style="border-top:1px solid #999966; border-right:1px solid #999966; background:#e7dcc3;" {{!}} Location
{{!}} class="region" style="border-top:1px solid #999966;" {{!}} {{{Location|}}}

It would put the location in the right microformat field (adress->region) rather than just a label. Thanks --Qyd 21:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If location weren't used, it would apply to the next available parameter, not necessarily something related to "adr". --MZMcBride 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Opps, you're right. Then maybe

|- 
{{#if:{{{Location|}}}|
{{!}} style="border-top:1px solid #999966; border-right:1px solid #999966; background:#e7dcc3;" {{!}} Location
{{!}} class="adr" style="border-top:1px solid #999966;" {{!}} <span class="region">{{{Location|}}}</span>

would work? --Qyd 00:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to remove class="label"? And, does it matter if the class="adr" goes in the <tr> or <td>? --MZMcBride 23:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the "address" fields are similar, but more detailed than "label" (and "label" is generally not parsed as well as "address" is), so if we change to "adr", then "label" should go. Shouldn't matter where class="adr" goes, as long as class="region" is wrapped in an element defined as "adr", i.e.

|- 
{{#if:{{{Location|}}}|
{{!}} style="border-top:1px solid #999966; border-right:1px solid #999966; background:#e7dcc3;" {{!}} Location
{{!}} style="border-top:1px solid #999966;" {{!}} <span class="adr"><span class="region">{{{Location|}}}</span></span>

would work just as well. --Qyd 01:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

 Done. Neil ム 13:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Code updates

I've updated the code to use wiki formatting; it's easier to read and doesn't require HTML comments. Additionally, I removed some redundant code (e.g., width:205px). The layout and usage should be identical. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo caption font size

{{Editprotected}} Could the photo caption use a slightly smaller font?

by replacing:

{{!}} style="border-top:1px solid #999966; text-align:center;" colspan="2" {{!}} [[Image:{{{Photo}}}|300px]]<br />{{{Caption|}}}

with:

{{!}} style="border-top:1px solid #999966; font-size:95%; text-align:center;" colspan="2" {{!}} [[Image:{{{Photo}}}|300px]]<br />{{{Caption|}}}

or

{{!}} style="border-top:1px solid #999966; font-size:smaller; text-align:center;" colspan="2" {{!}} [[Image:{{{Photo}}}|300px]]<br />{{{Caption|}}}

or even

{{!}} style="border-top:1px solid #999966; text-align:center;" colspan="2" {{!}} [[Image:{{{Photo}}}|300px]]<br /><small>{{{Caption|}}}</small>

It would be closer to a standard image caption. Thanks. --Qyd 17:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Globalize wikilink for "Listing" row

{{editprotected}} Please change the wikilink for the "Listing" row. Currently links to Hill lists in the British Isles: please link to Lists of mountains instead (to allow us to use listings in any country). Discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains#Lists in Infobox. Thanks! hike395 08:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 10:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Locator image

Is it possible to add locator image functionality? Sometimes a picture of a mountain is not currently available but having locator image to the mountain is enough. For instance, in Mount Leuser article. There is one example in Template:Infobox Settlement which provides the functionality with pushpin_map parameter. It would be good to have such feature in this template. — Indon (reply) — 09:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

While this is not implemented in Infobox Mountain, a map can be forced in (within the name parameter), see Mount Leuser. --Qyd 14:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't look good at all -- I would far rather editors just used the map as a photo then force something in like this. hike395 02:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be better to use the already defined coordinate parameters to make the location map, instead of forcing it and define the same coordinate parameters twice. — Indon (reply) — 09:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hike, this kind of map (with additional markup) can not be used instead of the photo because of the automatically added image syntax ([[Image: ...etc). Of course, that can be circumvented too... Indon, the problem with pushpin_map (dot position defined by coordinates) is that it only works with maps of rectangular projection (not suitable for larger regions), so if we would implement this, we would also need some other alternative map display system. --Qyd 14:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest continue discussing this at the relevant wikiproject, so more people can participate. hike395 03:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Redesign

I was (over)bold and updated the visual look somewhat to reflect the design of other similar infoboxes. I hope I didn't screw anything up (well, I'm good at templates, but not exceptionally good). If I did, feel free to revert me (well, um, or call an administrator to do that through {{editprotected}}). Duja► 15:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your work --- however, the style of the infobox reflects a long-standing consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains. I'll start a conversation there, to see if we can get consensus on the new style. hike395 04:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Parent Peak?

Where was the discussion on adding a parent peak parameter? Mark J seems to have added it without any community discussion. RedWolf 16:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No discussion --- I was going to bring it up back at the WikiProject. I'll leave a note on the Infobox urging people to discuss editing the infobox at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hike395 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem with "Photo size" parameter

The "Photo size" parameter seems to cause a problem if it exists but is empty. This is because the template places a pipe symbol after the image name with nothing between that and the closing square brackets. I think an "if" block is needed. --Ozhiker (talk) 10:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed --Ozhiker (talk) 13:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Pushpin location map added

Per a request on my talk page, I've added a pushpin location map. It uses almost the same exact coding that is used at {{Infobox Settlement}}. Any map that has been created for {{location map}} can be used (e.g. Nepal or Colorado). New coordinate fields were also added to facilitate this and those coordinate fields must be used to make the map work correctly. All the new fields are:

|pushpin_map            =<!-- the name of a location map as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Location_map -->
|pushpin_label_position = <!-- the position of the pushpin label: left, right, top, bottom, none -->
|pushpin_map_caption    =
|pushpin_mapsize        =
|coordinates_ref= 
|latd= |latm= |lats= |latNS=
|longd= |longm= |longs= |longEW=

—MJCdetroit ^(yak) 18:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See Mount Everest for an example. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 18:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• This should have been discussed on the WikiProject page before implementing it. I don't have any objection to map concept itself as I myself was testing some changes to add map parameters. However, this is a major change and the convention is to allow the community to discuss before implementation. For example, I would prefer to see the map at the bottom of the infobox rather than immediately after the image. Also, I was looking at just adding one parameter called map where one would place the call to {{Location map}}. RedWolf (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Could the default mark be changed from "Red pog2.svg" to something like "RedMountain.svg"? --Waltloc (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Parent Peak

The attribute Parent_peak does not seem to display. Is that meant to be the case?imars (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example, Nakano Summit imars (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The documentation was not in sync with the implementation. The actual parameter name is "Parent peak". I have fixed the documentation. RedWolf (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This should be called "Parent" not "Parent peak". There's subsidiary peaks that are not part of a larger mountain. For example, see Silverthrone Caldera which contains many subsidiary peaks but is not a mountain. Can someone change this? Black Tusk (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. If Silverthrone Caldera isn't a mountain, then it should use a different infobox, such as {{Geobox|Range}} (for example, as on the Sierra Nevada page), and the parent peak of any subsidiary peaks is most likely Mount Silverthrone. — ras52 (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a different infobox. The Silverthrone Caldera is not a range. Mount Silverthrone, Mount Filtzgerald, Mount Kinch etc are all subsidiary peaks of the caldera. The caldera itself can be considered a mountain "feature" but not an actual "mountain". Black Tusk (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what the parent peak field is for: it is for the prominence parent. Mount Silverthrone is the highest point of the caldera (along its rim, unsurprisingly), and so its parent peak is a mountain outside of the caldera. Nothing should list Silverthrone Caldera as its parent. — ras52 (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I know what the parent field is for. What I'm trying to explain is there should be something simliar to the "Parent peak" field. Anything inside or on the caldera's rim is part of the caldera. The caldera is prominent because its rim can be seen. Black Tusk (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

But you didn't ask for something similar: you asked for it to be renamed. Specifically, you said This should be called "Parent" not "Parent peak", and changed the documentation to reflect this. If you want something similar adding, then you need to let us know what it's for. And I'm certainly not happy with a new field called "parent" — it's confusingly similar to "parent peak". — ras52 (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I renamed it because there's no need to have two field's that are similar. What's the point of having two similar fields, especially if something is prominent? The best thing is to have to things similar merged. Black Tusk (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So what do you want to use the the "parent" field for, if not for the prominence parent? — ras52 (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is having the "parent peak" field titled "parent peak" means it's only used for original subsidiary peaks like Little Tahoma. But if you have a field titled "parent" it can mean the subsidiary peak of the parent peak (e.g. Little Tahoma is a subsidiary peak of Mount Rainier) or the subsidiary peak of a mountain feature like the Silverthrone Caldera. Such a field would make the "parent peak" field more useful and both have prominence. Black Tusk (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm still not very clear what you're wanting. What is an "original subsidiary peak", for example? And are you saying that you would like the "parent" field of Mount Silverthrone to be Silverthrone Caldera? If so, I don't agree: the only thing in the "parent" field for Mount Silverthrone should be whatever its prominence parent is. — ras52 (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I ment "original subsidiary peak" as a subsidiary peak associated with another mountain like it's usually used. The Silverthrone Caldera and most other calderas are a prominent feature and thus they do have heights; for example, see here. It's rim is basically like a ridge and Mount Silverthrone lies on the rim of the Silverthrone Caldera making the Silverthrone Caldera the prominence parent of Mount Silverthrone. Black Tusk (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I've misunderstood the topography of Silverthrone Caldera. What is the highest point of the caldera? I had understood it to be Mount Silverthrone, along the rim. But maybe I'm mistaken. Is it actually another peak along the rim? Or the central dome? (The coordinates given in the article are either wrong or insufficiently accurate, or Google Maps is significantly buggy interpreting latitudes and longitudes.) — ras52 (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've spent a good while poring over topographic maps on nrcan.gc.ca. The Silverthrone Caldera article says the highest point is 3,160 m (10,367 ft), but I can't locate any points higher than about 9,400 ft (which is the highest 100 ft contour shown on Mount Silverthrone): so where does does it reach 3,160 m? The introductory paragraph on the Silverthrone Caldera article says Mount Silverthrone is "3,160 m (10,367 ft) high" which suggests it is the high point of the caldera. But the Mount Silverthrone article says it is 2,865 m (9,400 ft) which is exactly consistent with the maps I've looked at. Anyway, everything I've seen suggests Mount Silverthrone is the highest point of the caldera, and that there is no higher (possibly unnamed) point elsewhere on it.

There are various sorts of parent peak defined (see the topographic prominence article for details) of which the most popular seems to be the prominence parent. The common element to all of the types of parent is that the parent is higher than mountain itself. In the case of the prominence parent, it also has to be more prominent. (Note: more prominent doesn't mean it looks bigger or is more important, it is a well-defined numeric property of peaks, and only of peaks.) If Mount Silverthrone is the highest point of the Silverthrone Caldera, the parent must be higher, which means it must be away from the caldera. Monarch Mountain seems a plausible candidate.

But irrespective of precisely what Mount Silverthrone's parent is, the point is that it unquestionably is the summit of a pretty big mountain — a peak, in other words. — ras52 (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The coordinates seem to be wrong. Mount Silverthrone is the highest mountain of the Silverthrone Caldera but its exact elevation is uncertain. Some references state an elevation as high as 3,160 m, but the current topographic map shows contours only as high as 2,865 m. In addition, it is unclear whether the highest point is of volcanic origin or not, since the summit is covered with permanent snow and ice, and the composition of the underlying rock is unknown. The base of the mountain is pretty big and it lies on the northwestern rim of the caldera. Black Tusk (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so the prominence parent of Mount Silverthrone is not Silverthrone Caldera. Monarch Mountain is a strong contender. So with that established, do we still have any examples of things that need a "parent" rather than a "parent peak" field? — ras52 (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Monarch Mountain is nowhere near Mount Silverthrone or the Silverthrone Caldera. 51°27′01.95″N 126°04′45.80″W should be in the middle of the caldera. Mount Filtzgerald lies on the northern rim of the Silverthrone Caldera at 51°31′01.9″N 126°03′56.2″W. Black Tusk (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I know where Monarch Mountain is. There's no requirement for the prominence parent to be near by. For example, the prominence parent of Denali is Aconcagua, many thousands of miles away. Mount Fitzgerald ("Filtzgerald" has to be typo) is near by, but it isn't higher than Mount Silverthrone and so it cannot possibly be the prominence parent of Mount Silverthrone. You may want to remind yourself of the definition of the prominence parent. I'm not categorically stating that the parent of Mount Silverthrone is Monarch Mountain, but it whatever it is, it has to be something higher, and not necessarily the nearest higher peak. — ras52 (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK sorry. I thought you were saying Monarch Mountain is the highest point of the Silverthrone Caldera. Black Tusk (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. So is there still any need for the "parent peak" field to be renamed "parent"? I can't see any. — ras52 (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a need either, although I still think there should be something for subsidiary peaks. Black Tusk (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please add the link to Ido template

io:Shablono:Monto. Thank you, Joao Xavier (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done. RedWolf (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Broken microformat

{{editprotected}}

Will somebody please reverse this edit, as "label", rather than "adr-location", is the correct hCard microformat value for non-specific address data such as "Washington, USA" (seen in [1], for example). Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 13:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but you seem to have changed something, other than the edit requested above. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I accidentally edited the old version, it seems. Thanks for pointing that out! Happy‑melon 14:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine now. Once again, thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(Moved text here from Template talk:Infobox mountain that got moved there without explaination.  –droll [chat] 17:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC))

Fixed elevation for possible template-nesting limit

09-March-2010: There appears to be a limit to nesting templates and if-expressions which use Template:Convert, because of Convert's "19-nested subtemplates" issue. Some articles using Template:Infobox mountain were getting parser-errors for conversions of the type elevation={{convert|97|m|ft}} but NOT when adding precision "|0" which uses 3 fewer subtemplates to determine the precision rounding (avoiding templates Ordomag, Ordomag/x, etc.):

• {{convert|97|m|ft}} = 97 metres (318 ft)
• {{convert|97|m|ft|0}} = same, but by 3 fewer subtemplates

I fixed that parser-error problem by simplifying a 3-nested if-expression, inside the nested infobox Template:Infobox mountain/main. That 3-nested if-expression had been:

| data2 = {{#if:{{{elevation_ft|}}} | {{convert|{{formatnum:{{{elevation_ft|}}}|R}}|ft|m|0|abbr=on}} | {{#if:{{{elevation_m|}}} | {{convert|{{formatnum:{{{elevation_m|}}}|R}}|m|ft|0|abbr=on}} | {{#if:{{{elevation|}}} | {{{elevation|}}} }} }} }}<!-- -->{{#if:{{{elevation_ref|}}} |  {{{elevation_ref}}} }}

Which had the nesting logic as:

if elevation_ft passed then convert(elevation_ft)

else if elevation_m passed then convert(elevation_m)

else if elevation passed then show elevation.   <--error here

if elevation_ref passed then show x2005 elevation_ref.

Instead, the new logic has moved "elevation" outside the nested-if:

if elevation_ft passed then convert(elevation_ft)

else if elevation_m passed then convert(elevation_m).

if elevation passed then show elevation.   <--this now works for {{convert|..|m|ft}}

if elevation_ref passed then show x2005 elevation_ref.

With that change, then typical Convert worked for elevation={{convert|97|m|ft}}. Also, tests would work when bypassing the top-nested infobox, and instead calling the inner {{Infobox mountain/main}} as one less level of template-nesting. However, we shouldn't request users to stop using nested infoboxes, so the quick fix is to avoid using Convert in 3-nested-if expressions inside nested infoboxes. Long term, we need to see if we could combine some of the "19-nested subtemplates" which Convert uses to compute {{convert|97|m|ft}}. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

coordinates_ref

I've modified {{Infobox mountain/main}} to pass the coordinates_ref= parameter to {{Infobox coord}}, in order that title coordinates can be properly footnoted. If this causes any problems, feel free to revert my change. --Stepheng3 (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional hCard classes

{{Editprotected}}

Please change:

|listing={{{Listing|{{{listing|}}}}}}

to:

|listing=<span class="category">{{{Listing|{{{listing|}}}}}}</span>

and:

|range={{{Range|{{{range|}}}}}}

to:

|range=<span class="category">{{{Range|{{{range|}}}}}}</span>

in order to emit additional hCard microformat properties (see the microformat project for more info). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done (for {{Infobox mountain}}). Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. What's the relation between the two templates, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Infobox mountain is a wrapper template for this one. The infobox was recently changed to use the infobox class and the parameter names were standardized. To allow existing articles with the template to still work using the older parameter names, the wrapper template supports both the old and new names. RedWolf (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And: {{Infobox mountain pass}} also relies on this template, so any hCard changes made here would be inherited there. —hike395 (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Second map

Thats not a secret that some mounts are located on borders. So there was an edit war in Mount Kazbek. This template is protected. So I decided to create new template for mounts on borders. with using {{infobox mountain/main}}. Initially I used {{infobox mountain on border/main}}.

I think it would be better if we realize two maps showing in this template.--Bouron (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I merged this with the main template. Next time it's probably better to just make an {{editrequest}} with a link to changes in the sandbox, rather than forking the template. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!--Bouron (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• I really don't like this solution. One region is still going to be first and the other comes in second. This is actually a more general problem. Sněžka (aka Śnieżka and Schneekoppe) is on the boarder between the Czech Republic and Poland. There was a huge debate about the article name on the talk page. I think the best solution here would be to create a special map of the region showing the boarder area with the two nations shaded in different colors. Alaska and British Columbia share a number of summits in the Saint Elias Mountains. I know this is problematic. I'll think some more about it. –droll [chat] 03:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• This should have been discussed BEFORE the changes were made. As such, I am opposed to these changes on these grounds alone. Secondly, there's going to be an edit war of which map gets shown first, thus not really solving the problem. All these border edit wars are all the same, which one gets to be first or totally removing any mention of the other country due to political/religious rhetoric. Adding a second map does NOT solve this problem. Something along the lines of what droll suggests would be a much better solution. This is a highly used template (8500+ pages), major changes should not be introduced until there has been some discussion on its merits and/or alternative solutions. RedWolf (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Droll and RedWolf, You dont like when one region is first and the other is second. But how about situation when one countries map is shown while anothers one is not? Which of these two cases provokes edit war? Sure, second does.

We can put to the top country controlling bigger part of the montain as it was made here.

Droll, I liked your idea of creating special map. for example topographic maps of caucasus...--Bouron (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• That is not what I said. I said an edit war would result because one was chosen as being first over the other so you still have not solved the edit war problem. The main reason why one country map is chosen over the other is usually due to aesthetics at least as far as I am concerned. If there was a map that showed both simultaneously that would be the best solution. A map of the mountain range would probably be the best. For cases of mountains in the Alps, there is an Alps location map. There are some mountains on three borders (in Europe for example). You propose adding a 3rd map for that as well? Still, you have not addressed why you made these changes without asking for any community consensus first? RedWolf (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I made them because

1. They dont reflect on other articles. I just added new information. I didnt delete something. And I didnt add something what had been denied before.
2. The changes were evident.

Why not adding 3rd map if the mount is in 3 countries. The location of mountain in country is encyclopedic information. thats very important information as location in mountain range.

The edit war was on presence of map. I gave them opportunity to paste both maps. But you say they should to start new edit war on which map is higher?! Please provide a link showing someone changed maps position. The user made that should be blocked or warned. I cant understand how administrator can have position you have here.

The map of mountain range is perfect idea. But that is not reason to delete country location maps. We should widly discuss how to combine the maps in the template.--Bouron (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Creating a map for the border region is probably the best idea. We could certainly deprecate the use of a second map, but allow them until such border maps can be created. My rationale for adding the second map to the top level template was to avoid a template fork, since the functionality had been added to the main subtemplate. By the way, if you want help making a border map, I suggest asking NordNordWest nicely, who is really good at making maps. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I created a location map for the border region, so I would say that the second location map is no longer needed? Plastikspork (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats good work for wikipedia. But If someone is interested for example in mount kazbek and visited the article. If I were that person I would disappeared because of lacking the information on location of the mount in Russia and Georgia. Firstly we should think about what wikipedia visitors are looking for here. But we think about how not to provoke edit war on which map is higher. So why not starting edit war on which country is first - Russia, Georgia -> Georgia, Russia? --Bouron (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Would you come right out and say what you want. If you want us to define the boarders of some of these areas that might be problomatic and thankfully its not are job. –droll [chat] 10:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I wrote everything I want. Please read my messages again. I want presence of location maps is the template. But can you give me reasonable explanations why they can't be in the template?--Bouron (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a location map in the template, and it shows the location of the mountain within the mountain range. The fact that it is on the border is reflected by the list in the "location field". I don't see a need for more than one location map if there is already a map showing the border region. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

But I see. And I perfectly explained why country location maps should be presented in the template. But I still don't feel reasons of deleting country location maps except your own views. You are not interested in where mount is located within country and you use your administrative rights. I can't understand your arguments. --Bouron (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what "administrator rights" has to do with anything. I didn't use any administrator rights to remove the location maps. In fact, I used administrator rights to add them, which is what you had requested. We are having a discussion, and currently you are the only one who thinks that it is necessary to have a second location map in the infobox. By the way, if you think that more location maps are needed, there is basically nothing stopping you from adding them to the articles in question, especially if you use {{location map}} directly, rather than placing them in the infobox. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we are having a discussion, and I am the only who stated his views. your arguments are: "I don't see a need for more than one location map if there is already a map showing the border region." ; "there's going to be an edit war of which map gets shown first". --Bouron (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The first statement was made by me, and the second statement was made by RedWolf. We aren't the same person. I don't object to adding location maps. I just object to loading everything in the infobox. There are plenty of other places to put a map outside of the infobox. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, for my poor english. When I wrote "your" I meant plural "your", not singular.--Bouron (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

---

My expanded view for those who didn't read the discussion.

• It is normal for wikipedia using country location maps for mountains. See Mount Damavand, Mount Olympus, Mount Kilimanjaro, Mount Everest. That is because country location of the mountain is very important information.
• But there are mounts that are on border of two or more countries.
  • My logical conclusion:
    • We should add all location maps where mount is located.
  • Your logical conclusion (if you have another views, please describe them):
    • We should delete country location map and add location map of the range.=>country location is still important for some mounts (Mount Olympus) but it is no more important for another sort of mounts (Mount Kazbek).
• Most of mounts are part of mountain ranges. So location of mountain on its range is important too. But, again, that is not reason for deleting country location map.

example

If article Coca cola is in categories "drinks" and in category "non-alcogol drinks"=>we should delete one of these categories. But if it is in "drinks" and "products of Coca-Cola company" why we should delete one of them.

Now we have mount as part of country and as part of MR. You think we should ignore one of it. But we can ignore one of them if first category is part of second or second is part of first. Neither MR is part of the country, nor country is part of MR.

In one day I will make a propose of solution.--Bouron (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, having a separate map for each country is overkill. I also think showing the mountain within a range is OK. As an alternative, create a combined map of both countries. Both countries are outlined and placed border-on-border with the appropriate size relationship and an indicator of the location of the mountain. The example that Bouron brings might present a special challenge there as the size relationship between Russia and Georgia is such that Georgia might be hard to recognize on the map.imars (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible compromise

I have a proposed compromise, similar to what Bouron and imars are saying, above. In the past, I've wanted to add a specialized map that illustrates the location of a mountain (e.g., a cropped topo map from the Forest Service, for example). This sort of map is not a locator map: it has the location of the mountain already shown in the image. With the current infobox, I have to give up on showing a photograph of the mountain to show the specialized map.

Proposal: Add a new field, called "custom_map" that does not call {{Infobox mountain/map}}. Instead, it would be similar to the photo field. It can have "custom_map_size" and "custom_map_caption". It can be used for mountains on borders of countries (per Bouron, above). It can also be used to show topo maps and mountains that have multiple peaks or that are part of long ridges.

What do other editors think? —hike395 (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• It would be possible to load to load either a location template (as we do now) or an image using the existing parameters. It works that way on {{Infobox protected area}}. I did that code. Give me some time and I'll see what I can do. –droll [chat] 16:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If your solution save information about country location and range location, I support your proposal. But first give us an example of your solution as I made in section "Bourons proposal".--Bouron (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the proposal is to allow for either a map image or a location map to be specified using the "map" parameter. This would still restrict the total number of maps to one (plus a photo), but would allow for the map to be something other than a {{location map}}. I support this idea, since location maps often take longer to code up, and there are plenty of maps of mountainous regions with the peaks already labeled. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Right: the idea for Bouron is to make a custom map that shows the border region only, and not to use the locator maps. That way no one argues over which country comes first. As for an example, I added one at {{Infobox mountain/testcases#Hualālai}}, which shows the substitution of a better map for a plain locator map. —hike395 (talk) 06:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Bouron's proposal

I propose such form of template.

• For mount on border - User:Bouron/test
• For mount totally in one country - User:Bouron/test2

What do you think?

I proposed just an idea of combining of maps. Don't take attention on technical realization. --Bouron (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is no photo we can put range LM to the top. and leave country LM in section "location". I haven't realized that yet.--Bouron (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really like this solution. The way to combine maps is to create a new {{location map}}. This is far better than having a bunch of maps with a bunch of pins in the infobox. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What is better? You don't like "bunch of maps" but you like lacking important information? Please, explain how "bunch of maps" spoils wikipedia as encyclopedia.

It is sure better than current template because the main aim is done - all important information is presented. At this moment this is best solution. because it is the only solution where all needed information is presented.--Bouron (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm totally opposed to the idea. Infoboxes are intended summarize some important data that pertains to the article. Using a map is totally optional. There is no reason that I can see for multiple maps in the infobox. Infoboxes should be concise and uncluttered. The body of the article can contain as many maps as the editor thinks would be helpful to the reader. Just put your maps in the body of the article. They can be as big as good taste allows. I'm not going to comment any further on this issue. I believe that your solution is obvious. I will try to arrange the time to translate and modify the french version of the SVG topo file but it may take a while as I have to learn on the job. I'm doing only for my own amusement. –droll [chat] 00:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes I'd like to make

I've been pondering these changes for a long time. Most, I think, are noncontroversial. I believe the best way to go about this is list them here for 7 days and if there are no oppositions or if there is consensus I'll implement them. Please comment below each item or make general comments at the end of this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Droll (talk • contribs) 10:02, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

1. Y Change the default (minimum) table width from 22em to 24em. This will reduce the number of data fields that wrap. Most readers will never notice this. This change is implemented in the sandbox and the difference can be seen in the Mount Fuji (1) test case.

2. Y Remove the old and strange parameter names form {{infobox mountain}}. I went through all the pages and migrated all the parameter names to the new ones. I'll check them all again just before this change is implemented. This change is also implemented in the sandbox.Y

3. Y Migrate photo_size and map_size to photo_width and map_width since size is a misnomer. The parameter specifies the pixel width of the object.Y

4. N Deprecate the age parameter as was discussed above. This would mean removing it from the examples and the parameter documentation table and noting that the parameter is deprecated in a notice box. See {{convert}} for an example. I don't think it would be necessary to use the red color attribute. There was no objection to this in the discussion above. I believe this information belongs in the article text. The parameter would remain functional.

5. N Deprecate the translation parameter as in 4. The information conveyed in this field and two parameters below below really should be in the article lead. They clutter up the infobox. See Am Bodach.

6. N Deprecate the language parameter as in 4.

7. Y Deprecate the pronunciation parameter as in 4.

8. Y Remove the the second map functionality. I'll implement tracking before this can be done. It seems there is consensus in the discussion above but I'm not sure.

Support all of the above. While I am not a biggy of the infobox, these changes seem to be reasonable. I doubt the language and pronunciation parameters are even used very often. BT (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Support 1-3, 8. Oppose 4-7. Humans are not the only entities reading WP infoboxes. There are a number of software efforts to parse and use WP infoboxes (e.g., Freebase, see [2]). If we deprecate the parameters, the software cannot use the data. I don't find our templates that cluttered.

If people think that "age of rock" is ambiguous (for suggestion 4), I recommend that we make it less ambiguous, rather than removing the parameter altogether. I don't think it is ambiguous. —hike395 (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

About #4, I'm not a geologist but I keep thinking about Mount Whitney. There is the age of plutonic rock, the age of the inclusions in the granite which are older, and there is the time when the range experience uplifted. I think this is too complicated to be explained in less than even 20 words. This is all big time stuff for geologists but the common reader really has no concept of Mesozoic or Paleozoic time. (End of rant.) –droll [chat] 04:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Support 1-4,7,8 and Oppose 5-6. I see the coordinates wrap in many cases so fixing that (#1) would be good. While having a good paragraph on the English translation of a mountain's name is sometimes warranted, most times I don't think it amounts to any more than a literal translation of a few words. The field is for the translation of the name, not for how the mountain received its name which definitely belongs in the article body and not the infobox. Nothing wrong with expanding on it in the article body but I find it informative to see the translation in the infobox. I have never found the pronunciation to be of much value/use (in fact, I don't think I have ever filled it in myself). RedWolf (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy with that after consideration.  –droll [chat] 05:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Re #4: The fault, dear Droll, lies not in our infobox, but in our wikilinks. Any entry in a infobox could potentially be confusing to a non-expert (before being a WP editor, I always mixed up Latitude and Longitude, for example). It's the job of the linked article to help editors understand what to place into the infobox (e.g., List of mountain types). Right now, "age of rock" links to an expert-level article on the definition of the geological ages. If I can write a simple, well-sourced article distinguishing between the age of rock and the age of a landform, and we link to that, would you be happy with keeping "age of rock" in the infobox? —hike395 (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Well my nice new flat screen 22 in. monitor went dead after a power outage. I think I'm getting pay back for something. Actually I'd be happy with just about anything if I can get my monitor fixed.

I'm sure something can be done about the age thing. I've been thinking of something similar as the solution to a problem I see. I up with dropping the debate on #4 and coming up with a link or something like that unless someone else wants to chip in. Best wishes.

 –droll [chat] 07:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I tidied up my comment above. I really shouldn't edit when I'm sleepy. Anyway, yes, I think hike395's idea is great. I'm thinking that it might be useful to link to parameter explanations that are specific to the way the terminology is used in the label. These pages could contain links to the main articles. A case in point is the prominence field. It links to an article that is overly complex for the context and that has resulted, in my opinion, to the discussion in the section below. The pages linked to don't have to be in the main article space. They could be sub-pages of the template, or sub-pages of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains or help pages. My "great explanation of clean prominence" below might be a good starting point.

The proposed end of the comment period is on Thursday. On Wednesday evening, I'll write a summery of what I think the consensus is. That will give one day for you tell me if I've missed something.

 –droll [chat] 06:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with whatever infobox changes others want. Thanks for all the work on this.   Will Beback  talk  23:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that 1,2,3,7 and 8 should be implemented and that 4, 5 and 6 should be retained. Any last minute comments are welcome. I'll implement the code changes in the sandboxes and update the documentation tomorrow. The I'll let RedWolf know when its ready to be moved into the active template. Thanks all.  –droll [chat] 04:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

False precision

My peeve, again: Rounding to a tenth of a meter is often wrong. A lot of summit elevations are known only within one contour interval, e.g. ±10 ft. Converting that to a figure purportedly accurate to ±5 cm gives a false precision. This goes doubly so for prominence, for which both elevations are seldom accurately surveyed. Rounding such figures to the nearest 5 meters would be best.
—WWoods (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I moved your comment to a new section. Your point is certainly an issue but is not relevant to the section above. I believe we have had this discussion before but maybe its time to revisit the issue.

I agree that many summit elevations can only be determined by examination of a topographic map and that the contour enclosing the summit underestimates the elevation. In cases like this I always specify the elevation using the syntax elevation=(contour elevation)+ ft (floor of conversion)+ m) (e.g. elevation=1,680+ ft (512+ m)). This indicates (clearly I think) that the elevation is not well known. The British use a different method (e.g. elevation=c. 510 m (1,673 ft)). I have seen cases where editors add half the contour interval to the encircling contour. That, IMHO, is wrong.

Prominence is a different issue, IMHO. We use clean prominence which has a very clear definition. Clean prominence can be defined as the difference between the elevation of the higher contour nearest the saddle or the saddle elevation, if it is known, and the contour line which encircles the summit or the summit elevation, if it is known. There are two other ways to calculate prominence, namely: optimistic prominence and mean prominence. Calculating clean prominence results in a known value and there is no false precision possible. Also I believe it is in keeping with Wiki policy to use cited information when it is available. Doing our own prominence calculations when there are reliable sources is contrary to the spirit of that policy.

I would certainly like to know the opinions of others on this issue. I am prone to categorical statements I know but I'm not always right. I might be wrong about the floor thing. I think we had that discussion before too.

P.S. perhaps we could arrive at some guidelines that would help new editors.

 –droll [chat] 22:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Wwoods in this matter. I think it's misleading to add the tenths of a metre in the conversion as it indicates (to me) that the elevation is known to that exact precision, when in probably the vast majority of cases, that's really not true. The default precision should be 0 and if there are cases where the exact elevation is known, then people can use the general "elevation" field and use the convert template themselves to use precision of 1. Even then though, I think it's overkill (like over-categorization). It's like adding precision=1 to square km (or mi) values, it's not something that is generally done. RedWolf (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll go along with the precision thing. Tenths of meter are a bit much except, as you say, when the elevation is known with a high degree of accuracy.

    As to the prominence thing, I've been thinking about it and I think the advice I gave about is correct.

    When the elevation is interpolated from a topo map and no elevation is given then the precision should not be over stated. It should be the elevation of the closed contour, IMHO. Maybe we can discuss what convention should be used in a new section.

     –droll [chat] 02:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have copied this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains#Re: mountain elevation notation where, I hope, we can discuss the merits of different approaches.  –droll [chat] 02:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Parameters that are no longer documented.

The parmeters latd, latm, lats, latNS, longd, longm, longs, and longEW are no longer documented. Please use the new parameter names. If you'd like to continue to use them then let's discuss it here.  –droll [chat] 06:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove tracking of deprecated parameters

{{editprotected}}

Please remove:

{{#if:{{{pushpin_map2|{{{map2|}}}}}}|[[Category:Infobox mountain using deprecated parameters]]}}

just before <noinclude>. It is no longer needed. Thanks.  –droll [chat] 06:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete some subpages?

The Template talk:Infobox mountain subpages have multiplied over time. I can't see how some of them are of any use currently. if there is no objection, then in the interest of tidiness I will request that these should be deleted:

1. Infobox mountain/main/doc
2. Infobox mountain/sandbox/doc
3. Infobox mountain/sandbox2
4. Infobox mountain/sandbox2/main
5. Infobox mountain/sandbox3
6. Infobox mountain/testcases1
7. Infobox mountain/testcases2

They can all be recreated if needed. I don't think there is any thing useful in them now. Thanks.  –droll [chat] 19:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• The sandboxes are used for testing changes to the template while the test case pages are used to verify the changes by their visual appearance. I really don't see the harm in keeping these around although perhaps we only need to have one sandbox and one test case page. RedWolf (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I know.  –droll [chat] 06:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I moved {{Infobox mountain/sandbox/main}} to {{Infobox mountain/main/sandbox}} so that {{template sandbox notice}} would work.  –droll [chat] 20:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Need help with Antarctica Locator Map

Hi, I just created Gray Peak (Antarctica), but I am having trouble with the infobox, specifically the locator map. The coordinates work fine, but when I add a locator map, it shows the map of Antarctica, but the location pin is generating an error message:

<div style="position: absolute; z-index: 2; top: Expression error: Division by zero%; left: Expression error: Division by zero%; height: 0; width: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;">

I have no idea what I am doing wrong. I've commented out the "map" field for the time being. Could someone please take a look at this for me, and tell me what's wrong? Thanks, kevyn (talk) 08:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

So it seems Antarctica, and the region around the north pole, are special cases that where no considered when the our map sub-template was written. I hadn't a clue. I've looked at some other articles about mountains in Antarctica and none I looked at had maps. See List of Ultras of Antarctica. I'm going to have to think on it.  –droll [chat] 07:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Some changes to Location map are needed to make polar maps work. It's basically the same code improvements needed for edcp maps. I am working on it using code from the German wikipedia suggested by Амба. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I made some changes to Location map and it appears to be working now. Hopefully I got the right transformations (copied from German Wikipedia). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

BEAUTIFUL! Plastikspork, you are my hero! kevyn (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox mountain/map

{{editprotected}}

Please copy {{Infobox mountain/map/sandbox}} into {{Infobox mountain/map}}. It fixes a bug. It should be noncontroversial.

Having a border around the map causes side effects. If caption is assigned a value a border is created and the caption is placed within the border. If caption is not declared a border is generated. The only way to avoid a border is to declare it but assign it no value.  –droll [chat] 03:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 06:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Another option for maps

This proposal should not be considered in the context of the discussion above. It is something I have been thinking about doing for awhile now and since User:Hike395 mentioned something like this above I went ahead and did some coding.

I wrote the current version of {{Infobox protected area}} and it provides the follow options for the map field:

1. Displaying a map using {{Location map}} as we do with this template.
2. Displaying an image file which contains a map with the option of superimposing a marker.

I've integrated the second option into {{Infobox mountain/sandbox/map}} and added the necessary parameters to {{Infobox mountain/sandbox}} and {{Infobox mountain/sandbox/main}}. The K2 example at {{Infobox mountain/testcases}} implements this option. Let map=test.ext where text.ext is any image file. The parameter is overloaded so to speak. The location of the marker is specified using map_x and map_y. where x,y is the pixel coordinates where the marker is to be displayed. To obtain the pixel address preview the infobox with the map image file and optionally the map size specified. Download the map image using the left click menu and then load it into a graphics program such as Paint on Windows or GIMP. Move the cursor to the desired location. I have not implement labels for this option as they are not available in {{Superimpose}}.

I was experimenting with this some time ago and I seem to remember there is a small shift in the marker location when using Internet Explorer when compared with other browsers.

Before these changes are moved to the active template I would like to have a chance to discuss some other small changes I would like to see. I have some other things I need to take care of before I can get back here. Please do some beta tests for me if you have the chance. All suggestions are welcome.

I've also changed the font size of the map caption so that it conforms with the photo caption. This change will also prevent the caption from wrapping to the width of the map. The photo caption has never wrapped to the width of the photo.

P.S. If you look at the code for {{Infobox mountain/sandbox/map}} you will see some strange defaults. They are for use in development and debugging. –droll [chat] 22:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. There are some side effects from moving the map caption outside the {{Location map}} template. I think it results in a better layout. Compare the results in at {{Infobox mountain/testcases}}. I know why they happened but it would take some doing to explain it. –droll [chat] 22:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This is great! I'll definitely use this. I do have one suggestion: it would be a lot easier for me to specify the marker as a fraction of the map width and height, rather than in absolute pixels --- it's a lot less math. The template should also take into account the marker size, I think. {{Lageplan}} does both of these. What do you think? —hike395 (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I translated {{Lageplan}} this morning. The new location is {{Site plan}}. (That might be a too much of a transliteration?) Redirects are in place. The answer is we can provide both options with the addition of map_height and fork the functionality if map_height is not null. It will add some complexity which might confuse some newbies but I don't think that should be the determining factor. Documentation will become more complex.

I think we should retain the pixel option as many editors are familiar with that syntax. I'll work on it today.

 –droll [chat] 20:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well I finished coding. A silly typo cost me a couple of hours. This option requires that map_height is known. I'm not totally sold on this as it still requires some fussy work. I think we should keep it for the sake of completeness if nothing else. See the Slieve Gallion test case for an example. Can anyone think of a better name for {{Site plan}} (a.k.a {{Lageplan}}). I though of {{Superimpose%}}, {{Superimpose percent}} and {{Superimpose percentage}}. Another option would be to add the functionality to {{Superimpose}} and invoke the option with a parameter like |percent=yes. There might be a problem with inertia in getting it implemented.

  I'm going to ask around about the about the height problem but I'm not very hopeful.

   –droll [chat]

Thanks for all of the work, Droll. I didn't realize that I would have to enter the {{{map_height}}} if I needed to use percentages. You're right: it does not really save much math if I have to know that. I'm sorry for the poor suggestion causing you a large amount of work --- I was just carried away with enthusiasm! —hike395 (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not to worry. I enjoyed doing it. If I didn't, I wouldn't. It's mine thing I guess. I'm going to continue to see if the height can be derived in some way. –droll [chat] 09:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What ever happened to this? Even with {{{map_height}}}, I still think it is a good idea. —hike395 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Fix bug in calling Infobox coord

{{editprotected}}

Done Done by another editor --ANowlin: talk 01:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please copyc {{Infobox mountain/main/sandbox}} to {{Infobox mountain/main}}. There is a bug in calling {{Infobox coord}}: the parameters are switched. Today's update to {{Infobox coord}} broke this. We should fix our bug in order to let work proceed at {{Infobox coord}}.

Change was tested in the testcases. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. I want to tweak the change.  –droll [chat] 23:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Good to go. After Hike395 has a look at it.  –droll [chat] 23:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Droll's edit makes things cleaner. Let's change it! —hike395 (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I was about to implement the request but I have a question. Do you really mean "default is inline,title" or should this be "default is inline, title"?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"inline,title" is an option at {{coord}}. {{Infobox coord}} is a front-end for that template. So yes. Also, "inline,title" is within a comment that never seen by the interpreter.  –droll [chat] 01:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, done. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox mountain/map again

{{editprotected}}

Please copy {{Infobox mountain/map/sandbox}} into {{Infobox mountain/map}}. The changes are minor and will be transparent to users. The change has been tested. I cleaned an unnecessary case statement and prepared for a future version of the main template.  –droll [chat] 15:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Post a note (or revert) if there are any problems. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Infobox mountain/convert

{{editprotected}} Please copy {{Infobox mountain/convert/sandbox}} into {{Infobox mountain/convert}}. This will change the rounding of metres form 1 decimal place to 0. This was discussed and agreed to above.  –droll [chat] 05:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Implement changes in sandbox

I believe the version in the sandbox is now stable. The changes that were discussed are implemented. There are a few other changes that I don't think are controversial.

1. The default minimum width of the table is a bit wider.
2. The default maximum photo and map widths are a bit narrower.
3. map_border is no longer functional. It was never used and is buggy.
4. coordinate_ref does no wrap to the next line.
5. Grid reference is now above geological coordinates. (The use of both is rare).
6. Padding around labels and data reduced to tighten things up a bit.
7. Added "Landform" cell. This is for use by {{Infobox landform}}.
8. Added photo_width as an alternate name for photo_size.
9. Added map_width as an alternate name for map_size.
10. Added coords as an alternate name for coordinates.
11. Added coords_ref as an alternate name for coordinates_ref.
12. Increased font size of other_name from 95% to 110%. Name is 125%.

I will work on the {{Superimpose}} mapping method. The example in testcases is broken currently. I want to allow the geographical coordinates to display only in the title line. Currently, the use of lat_d and long_d forces the display of the coordinates in the table. This might be desirable when a grid reference is defined.

I hope everyone will look over the testcases and code before the active template is modified. I'm flexible.  –droll [chat] 05:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• "A bit wider" is how much exactly? Some of the coordinate refs are still wrapping to the next line. e.g. Mount Baker, Hualālai. I don't follow the reasoning for the landform parameter, please elaborate. Why the font size increases for name/other name? Is this the standard for other infoboxes? Do we really want to remove the coordinates from the table? Most sites that copy Wikipedia content don't seem to be able to display the title coordinates. RedWolf (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Well, it turns out that width is a relative thing. I just looked at the testcases using Internet Explorer and things look very different than they do in Foxfire which I use. Chrome does something else, etc. {{infobox}} sets the minimum width (for the current version) at 22em. I used 274px which in Firefox is 40px wider that the old minimum width. I'll work on this tomorrow if I get a chance. Thanks for the input.
2. The coordinates new display option would only be available when a grid reference is used. This would only apply to articles about the hills of the British Isles, or whatever their called. They don't use geographical coordinates very often. Currently, if they want a map then they have no option but to display the geographical coordinates in addition to the grid reference. This is not implemented in the sandbox version. It's just something I'm thinking about. Perhaps the option should be to not display the geographic coordinates at all in such circumstances. They would only be supplied for use by {{Location map}}. See the Slieve Gallion test case. Looks like I need to change {{Infobox coord}} again.
3. I think an increase in font size for the alternate name is a good idea in general but especially for non-roman fonts. The characters look very different when a small font size is used. I'll try something a little smaller than it is in the sandbox now but larger that 95% and see how it looks. See the Mount Fuji test case.
4. The formed_by parameter is used by {{Infobox landform}} which is, currently, intended to be a sort of catch all for geological features that don't fit with any other infobox. It's like traversed which is used in {{Infobox mountain pass}}.

It's getting late here so if I didn't make myself clear please ask for a better explanation and I'll have another go when I'm better rested.  –droll [chat] 07:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. coordinates_ref always wraps in the current version because of a bug.  –droll [chat] 07:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

---

See /main/testcases for a comparison of three sandboxes with different minimum widths. I would be happy with 25, 26 or 27 but would perfer 26 or 27.

The alternate name cell is displayed using different font sizes. I'd be happiest with 110%. It was 150% in the sandbox. I think it must have been a typo. I really missed on that one. The text in the name cell is 125% set in {{infobox}}. –droll [chat] 02:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Remember that many people use WP on teeny tiny screens (mobile phones, e.g.). Let's not ruin their experience of mountain articles. For this reason, I would suggest 25em and 100%. —hike395 (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The examples show minimum width. We have always allowed photos and maps to stretch the table. We do have a maximum size for photos and maps. Do you know if users can disable images on hand held devices. I think I remember reading something about this problem. I'll see if I can dig it up. –droll [chat] 04:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I asked the question at the Village Pump and the answer is here. So we need not be concerned about how the width of the infobox effects hand held devices. That said, I'll go with 25em but I'd like 110% for the alternate name. In some browsers, there is an improvement in font rendering at 110% and the difference in size is not dramatic.  –droll [chat] 18:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the answer is correct: I use Opera to look at the full WP on my phone, not Wapedia. It's moot, though: I'm glad you went with 25em. 110% is fine with me. —hike395 (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Infobox mountain/main

{{editprotected}} Please copy {{Infobox mountain/main/sandbox}} into {{Infobox mountain/main}}. It fixes a stray <p> in the HTML generated. –droll [chat] 04:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting rid of unneeded outer template

I propose that we move {{Infobox mountain/main}} to {{Infobox mountain}}, and {{Infobox mountain/main/sandbox}} to {{Infobox mountain/sandbox}}. The outer template(s) currently serves no purpose: they translate deprecated parameters that User:Droll has helpfully entirely purged from WP.

Comments? Thoughts? —hike395 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better to keep it for a while longer. See this diff.  –droll [chat] 00:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I think I would agree with keeping it around for a while longer given the comments listed in the link given by droll above. While I would lean towards doing this cleanup now, the benefits of keeping the outer template for now slightly outweigh the cleanup benefits. I suggest we revisit this again near the end of 2010. RedWolf (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am now in favour of removing the outer template. The tracking category Category:Mountain articles requiring maintenance that was added in October for obsolete parameters does not contain any articles. I found one in there today but I fixed it. Whenever I checked it periodically since October I did not see any articles in it. RedWolf (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Before this is done I'd like to do a final check with AutoWikiBrowser. I'm currently away form home and I do not have access to a high-speed internet connection. If this could wait till December 9 I would appreciate it. –droll [chat] 03:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm leaning towards keeping the outer template: we can keep {{Infobox mountain/main}} as the general core template, because {{Infobox mountain pass}} calls it directly. This can be generalized further --- perhaps we should create {{Infobox mountain range}}? I find geobox to be too general, filled with nonsensical parameters. —hike395 (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I ran my AutoWikiBrowser script and everything looks OK except Djebel Ressas which I'm not going to worry about. –droll [chat] 07:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Berg

Ok good. However, I too must now put a hold on this removal because there is the issue of {{Infobox Berg}} which is being used by editors copying mountain articles from the German Wikipedia. I had a bit of discussion a while back with one of the editors using this alternate template and why they couldn't simply use this Infobox mountain. There is a section on my talk page about this back in April 2010. I think perhaps we could also have Infobox Berg call the /main template with perhaps a few mods needed to accommodate some of the extra information that the Berg template provides that the mountain template does not. As hike395 noted above, the /main template is also a called by the mountain pass infobox. So, I think at this point there are two items to consider. (1) Changing Infobox Berg to call the /main template and (2) removing some of the deprecated parameters from the outer template. As for having a new infobox for the mountain range, I think it's something to consider as I also agree with hike395 that the Geobox one just adds so much clutter (anti "less is more"). It would also allow us to have a watch list page as we do for mountains. RedWolf (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What we should do with {{Infobox Berg}} is exactly what has been done with {{Infobox Burg}}. Basically, turn it into a template which calls this template, and can be cleanly substituted. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

While many of the parameters can be cleanly substituted, the Berg template (why is this a redirect to Berg1?) has a number of additional parameters that have no corresponding parameter in this template. We either need to add support for these other parameters or somehow add the necessary conditional logic to set parameters from multiple parameters in the Berg template. The Berg template also does not seem to have any parameters giving references for critical information such as elevation, prominence and coordinates. RedWolf (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Right. In my opinion, this should be a rough translation template which could be substituted. Some fields will have to be filled in. Now, if there is important information being lost in translation, we should consider adding corresponding fields here. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 07:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

location map

Cleveland Volcano (Alaska), the location map does not have a dot. Many Category:Volcanoes of Alaska with infobox mountain and location map do not have a dot. Any help? Please. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• It seems to be affecting all the mountains in Alaska. There was no recent infobox change so there must be something broken downstream in the supporting templates. Non-mountain articles using the Alaska location map are showing the dot so seems nothing has changed with the location map template. RedWolf (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a bug in {{Location map Alaska}}. Our infobox calls it with a negative (West) decimal longitude, which does not produce a mark:

Mount Cleveland

However, if it gets called with a positive (East) decimal longitude, greater than 180, the mark shows up:

Mount Cleveland

I'll report this at {{Location map}} —hike395 (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this was ongoing and I didn't even notice. I figured it was a bug with my browser or something. It's fixed now. Chris, how the hell did you get to this ahead of the person who was writing the article? :) ResMar 17:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(:p) I notice some months ago, I blamed my beginner edit skills. Asked for help somewhere else, did not get it. When I saw ur editing, and the problem there too. I couldn't really figure out what was going on, so I asked for help here this time ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's half-fixed. For Alaska, mountain dots will now show up in the Western hemisphere, but not the Eastern. The vast majority of the mountains are in the Western hemisphere, so that's progress. I'm having problems getting people to believe that the code is broken :-(. —hike395 (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

lol, ahem. ResMar 00:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

For maps that cross the 180th meridian, the coding of Template:Location map only works correctly when called with DMS coordinates. When using such maps, that template does not properly display the marker when given a negative decimal longitude unless you also set lon_dir=W. It appears that User:Hike395 fixed that on 21 March 2010 by adding updates to Template:Infobox mountain/main (see [3]) and Template:Infobox mountain/map (see [4]). However, an edit to Template:Infobox mountain/map on 3 August 2010 (see [5]) removed the line that passed a value for lon_dir to Template:Location map. I believe this issue can be fixed by simply restoring the following line in Template:Infobox mountain/map:

| lon_dir = {{#if:{{{long_EW|}}}|{{{long_EW|}}}|{{#ifexpr:{{{long|0}}} < 0|W|E}} }}

-- Zyxw (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked for a specific example on another page. Also, if the bug is in {{Location map}} why not fix that template? I think I might be missing something. –droll [chat] 22:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The new syntax for location map makes the entire "crosses180" stuff unnecessary. If I can find some time, I will switch over {{Location map USA Alaska}} to use the new syntax (e.g., see {{Location map Russia}}). If someone else has more time than I do, feel free to do it first. It should be a simple linear (affine) transformation with a bit of module logic. One could even make it handle degrees greater than 360 :) Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now fixed by modifying the Alaska location map. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 07:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

New sub type

Would it be possible to create a new sub type from Template:Infobox mountain for Island Volcano so as to be able to include parameters like "| area_km2 =", "| area_sqmi =" and "| area =" as well as others from template:infobox island? This would be useful for Mayor Island/Tuhua and ever so many others, see also Talk:Mayor Island/Tuhua#Duplication. Peter Horn User talk 22:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Also useful for island volcanoes would be the ability to include population numbers. I think we need to get around having to have both infoboxes on one article. Kahuroa (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I my opinion, that information should be in the article text. The data in Infobox mountain is meant to be only a brief summary of the information available. I see the article now uses {{Infobox islands}} as well. I don't see the coordinates appearing twice. Are you talking about the title line? –droll [chat] 00:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be specific to Peter Horn's computer or browser. Re the infoboxes, I think it's happening because Wikipedians who like to work on islands are crossing paths with those who work on volcano articles. The two sides are used to seeing certain facts in infoboxes, so the articles end up with two infoboxes with a lot of elements common to both. In this part of the world there are a lot of island volcanoes. There must be some way to keep both sides happy and the articles looking professional. Perhaps we should raise this at Talk infobox island as well to see if some consensus path can be found Kahuroa (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Duplication

The coordinates seem to appear twice in the infoboxes in Talk:Mayor Island/Tuhua#Duplication & Mayor Island/Tuhua. May be it is a problem with my "Windows xp". Peter Horn User talk 22:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

undocumented parameter

The source= parameter is not documented. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.  –droll [chat] 07:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox mountain or Geobox mountain?

Is this still the preferred template for mountains or has Geobox superseded it? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox mountain/Archive 2

is still preferred by this wikiproject. —hike395 (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional fields

Can we please add the following fields which are pertinent to mountains and which are used e.g. to distinguish independent mountains, hills, summits and subpeaks:

• prominence datum = Name of the higher mountain that can be reached with least loss of height. Need not be the nearest higher mountain. Can be linked. See prominence.
• wind gap = Name of the valley, saddle or wind gap between the mountain and its prominence datum.
• isolation = The distance (in kilometres) to the next higher mountain. See topographic isolation.
• isolation datum = Name of the nearest higher mountain. Can be linked.

There is already a "prominence" field, but that only gives the height, not the name of the datum summit nor the name of the valley/saddle/wind gap between them.

A really neat and compact way of displaying this information using arrows is illustrated e.g. on German Wikipedia at de:Zugspitze where the fields are called Dominanz (= isolation) and Schartenhöhe (= prominence). --Bermicourt (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

There already is a infobox field called "parent peak", which is exactly the same as "prominence datum", above. The term "parent peak" is more usual. "Datum" (in English) has a specific meaning, see datum (geodesy). I would be in favor of the three extra fields, but I defer to my WikiProject colleagues who probably can come up with more correct names. —hike395 (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't sure. Very happy with "parent peak" and have deleted "prominence datum" above.

Looking at the article on prominence, perhaps "wind gap" could be "linking col" or "linking saddle"? "Isolation" is fine, but "isolation datum" could be "isolation parent" or "nearest higher"? --Bermicourt (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• I am in agreement with adding these three additional fields although more stronger on the latter two than on the first one. As for the names, I vote for "isolation" and "isolation parent" for the latter two. Personally, I don't find much use for parent peak but isolation parent will have value. The wind gap/valley/saddle is not so easy since it can refer to multiple types. Need something generic to encompass all three and don't really like the "linking col/saddle" suggestion. Nothing suitable immediately comes to mind... RedWolf (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what "wind gap" refers to. Is it the same as the "key col" (the col from which prominence is calculated)? Do you really mean distance should be given in kilometers or would miles also be acceptable in places like the U.S.

In general, I just don't like the arrow syntax used in the German template. The meaning of the arrows is not clear at first glance. Also, I feel that isolation, key col and even parent peak and a bit esoteric. I have no idea of how important or how available this data is for most of the world. In the U.S., this data is only available from one or two cites for most summits. When does WP:PSTS apply.  –droll [chat] 06:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Defaulting to display coordinates inline

There are currently several hundred articles that have overlapping coordinates displayed in the title bar, many of which are mountain articles.[6][7][8] The reason for this is that most location infoboxes (such as {{Infobox settlement}}) only add coordinates to the infobox itself, and people use the {{Coord}} template if they want to also display coordinates in the title bar. {{Infobox mountain}}, however, defaults to displaying coordinates in both the infobox and the title bar. In my opinion this is problematic both because it is inconsistent with other infobox templates and because it is not intuitive that adding coordinate data to the infobox is also going to output coordinates to the titlebar.

I would like to suggest that we make the default behavior of Infobox mountain be to display coordinates just within the infobox, similar to Infobox settlement. This would mean changing the display parameter from "" to "inline". Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Changing the default display parameter would result in a large number of mountain articles without title coordinates. I'd prefer to fix the conflicts in the articles where they occur than to change the default and create an even bigger problem. —Stepheng3 (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion began on the {{Infobox coord}} discussion page. Kaldar, it sounds to me that your preferred option is not to show the coordinates in the title line at all. I'm not totally opposed to that idea but I think others have strongly held views. However, in my humble option, this is not the place to discuss that option. Maybe, it should be discussed at WikiProject Geographical coordinates or WP:RFC. –droll [chat]

Take a look at my comment at Template talk:Coord#Coordinates overwritten in the title line. –droll [chat] 04:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

For mountains specifically, is there a reason we want to display the coordinates in both the infobox and the title? It seems like redundant clutter to me. Wouldn't it be better to default to infobox only and let people override or use the Coord template directly if they really want coordinates in the title as well? Kaldari (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Relief parameter

I would like to add the relief parameter which, when set with a non-blank value, would result in the relief/physical map to be displayed, if present in the relevant location map template (the image1 parameter indicates by convention, a relief/physical map). In the past, I had been creating separate location map templates that would display the relief map when I found one for a country/subdivision. Since the location map templates include support for the relief parameter (not sure when it was added), it should be a simply matter of passing the parameter on from the Infobox mountain template. I see from the {{Infobox mountain/sandbox}} history that droll seemed to have been experimenting with adding the relief parameter along with a few other changes in June. Unsure of what other changes droll was looking at but adding support just for the relief parameter should be straightforward. As well, I am wondering if the infobox should default relief to 1/yes so that we don't have to go update all the articles ourselves. However, I am uncertain how intelligent the location map templates are with respect to setting relief=1 but the corresponding map has not been specified in the country/subdivision specific locator map template — if it doesn't find the relief map will it fallback to displaying the main map image? RedWolf (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I like the relief maps for the mountains --- making it easier to use them would be a big plus. I would only change default to yes if we knew for sure that the location map is not fragile. —hike395 (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I was waiting for droll to respond but he seems to be away at present. Anyways, I have made changes to the sandbox templates to support a relief parameter. If the relevant location map template does not specify a relief map, it will use the main map image. I have checked this in the testcases — for K2, the Pakistan location map does not have a relief map so it shows the main map image. Currently it sets relief to 1 if not specified or empty but cannot suppress the relief map by setting it to 0 as the Location map+ template just checks if it has been set to any non-blank value. I will need to add some conditional logic to our template to get this to work properly. In the meantime, one can have a look at the output from the testcases. RedWolf (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have added the logic to support map_relief=0. However, if one just specifies an empty value, this also acts like map_relief=0 — this behaviour I don't understand as it should have defaulted it to 1. I have added another test for Mount Everest to ensure it works when there is no photo. I will also note that the Scotland location map currently has the relief map as the primary map which is inconsistent with other location map templates — I have noted this on its talk page. So, this means that until the issue is resolved, if these changes are implemented, we would no longer see the relief map for Scotland articles unless we went and added map_relief=0 to those pages (I don't recommend doing this). RedWolf (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I altered the sandbox to call {{infobox map}}, instead of the mountain version. The final testcase of Hawaii doesn't seem to work, though: not sure what's intended there. Fixed the upper template to show a mark on the Hawaii testcase. Shall we copy out of the sandbox? —hike395 (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay good; I think droll's pending changes also included a switch to this general purpose map template. I think the final testcase for Hawaii was broken because it relied on some of droll's changes which I didn't carry over (I refreshed the sandbox from the live template). I would like to hold off for a day or two to see if we can get a quick resolution to the Scotland map template issue — I have posted a comment on the WikiProject Scotland talk page. RedWolf (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The changes are now live. I also changed the Scotland location map template so the relief map shows as expected. RedWolf (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)