Template talk:Infobox mountain range

Watch list
I have created WikiProject Mountains/List of mountain ranges to act as a project watch list for recent changes to articles using this template. I did an initial population although my approach is more manual than if you can run AWB. I will update the talk page when I get a chance. I will also add a new section on watch lists to the main project page. RedWolf (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Concerns with conversion
Copied from User talk:Hike395

So, I think, these things need attention.
 * 1) The lat_d and long_d parameters appear twice in some of the infoboxes I've looked at. I'm thinking that you are changing highest_lat_d to lat_d, etc. Could you first change the parameter names for existing lat_? and long_? to something like range_lat_?. This will make cleanup easier.
 * 2) There three options for elevation which are elevation, elevation_m and elevation_ft, but there are only two choices for length and width, which are, for example, width (metric), and width_mi ("imperial"). Could AWB rename width to width_km and length to length_km (or what ever). New width and length parameters could then be added for free form entry. I've seem width=3 to 5 mi which could be input as 3 to 5 mi . It would also be more consistent with the elevation parameters.
 * 3) We dropped the white space before a ref tag in Infobox mountain. I think was necessary because few editors choose to add white space when a ..._ref parameter was not available. I'd like to drop the white space in this template as well.&#32;– droll  &#91;chat&#93;  01:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with (1). I'll add range_lat_* to the parameter list of the template, and give it an entry outside of the highest point section. I agree with (2). A free-form width field is a good thing to have. I don't quite know what (3) means --- changing the template? Changing the AWB run? Could you say more?


 * I'll go back manually through my AWB edits and see if I can fix these concerns. —hike395 (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That all sounds good. The third point has to do with &amp;thinsp; which is used about five times. It's supposed to generate a space that in thinner than &amp;#32;. The reason I used it Infobox mountain was because I though 14,505 ft (4,421 m)[1] didn't look good. Using &amp;thinsp; looks like 14,505 ft (4,421 m)&thinsp;[1]. Results might differ depending on which browser you use. Because editors didn't use the same markup for other parameters, there was an inconsistency in style. I'm sure most folks never noticed. I'll work up version of the template and some test cases in my user space. I'll leave a note here when I get that done. It will not be tonight. It's trivial but I tend to be a detail freak.


 * If you go back over your converted articles, you'll notice that I've reduced the size of the map in most. I don't like maps to be too small but I think that a smaller than default size map conveys as much information as a big one. I also cleaned up some of the redundant {lat|long)_? parameters. I didn't have a clear notion of what should be done at the time. I'm not sure if range coordinates are necessary but I guess the editors who entered two sets of coordinates had a reason for doing it. I haven't checked to see what Geobox did with them. There is also the question about which set of coordinates gets displayed on the title line. I don't know if the range parameters should be displayed of not. Maybe others have an opinion.&#32;– droll  &#91;chat&#93;  04:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There are examples of the white space issue here and the markup is here. Please read my comment, on another issue at Template talk:Infobox mountain.&#32;– droll  &#91;chat&#93;  18:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The sandbox version is here and the test cases are here. They will eventually be overwritten.&#32;– droll  &#91;chat&#93;  23:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

bug in decdeg
This template is impacted by a bug in Decdeg which I reported on the template's talk page. —Stepheng3 (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It turns out the bug is actually in Infobox mountain range, so I'm moving the discussion here. The bug is triggered whenever  .  In that case,   produces 60, which is an invalid input to Infobox coord. There's also an analogous bug involving the range_long_s parameter. —Stepheng3 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like the bug was introduced by this edit. I will alert the responsible editor. —Stepheng3 (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at coding a fix for that, . Although it correctly handles 352359.873, turning that into 35°24'0", it doesn't handle situations like 355959.873 - these still come out as 35°60'0" not 36°0'0". -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I used decdeg to do the rounding directly on the decimal degree values --- there's no point in specifying the location of a mountain range to finer than 0.001°. I have to wonder, though, why Infobox coord does not directly call decdeg to handle all of the odd cases of missing minutes, seconds, etc. I put an experimental version at Template:Infobox coord/sandbox (tested at Template:Infobox coord/testcases), and it seems to work. Comments welcome at Template talk:Infobox coord. —hike395 (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've only just logged in. Strangely the business of precision only occurred to me early this morning whilst doing something totally other. Given that 1 second of arc is of the order of 30 metres, and any mountain range worth writing about is many kilometres long and several km wide, it's probably simplest just to ignore seconds entirely.

| {{Infobox coord | lat_d  = {{{range_lat_d|}}} | lat_m  = {{{range_lat_m|}}} | lat_NS = {{{range_lat_NS|}}} | long_d = {{{range_long_d|}}} | long_m = {{{range_long_m|}}} | long_EW = {{{range_long_EW|}}} | type   = {{ifempty|{{{coord_type|}}}|mountain}}
 * data28   = {{#if:{{{range_lat_d|}}}{{{range_long_d|}}}
 * The {{para|range_lat_s}} and {{para|range_long_s}} parameters would then be unrecognised. According to WP:OPCOORD, the difference between 35°23' and 35°24' is under 2 km and the chances of two different ranges having their centres any closer together than this is extremely unlikely. -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

{{od|4}} I think we want to go for a wee bit more precision than that. You're probably thinking of ranges like the Alps. But, some ranges are more like ridges: they're only several kilometers long to begin with and not that wide, so truncating to 2 kilometers (per your suggestion) may fall off the ridge entirely. Rounding to the nearest 50-100m point seems like a good compromise, introducing no more than 50m of "error" (I wish that decdeg did dms rounding, but it's a pretty simple template). I put error in quotes, because range location is not well defined. As an example, consider the case under consideration: Black Hills (San Bernardino County). The current infobox uses {{coord|35.4|-117.312}}, while your proposal would use {{coord|35|23|N|117|18|W}}, which jumps to the next ridge over! So, we do need the extra factor of 40 precision. —hike395 (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The longitude seconds conversion does not work correctly if you specify 00 &rarr; it comes out as 01. See Bosche Range for an example. If I don't specify the seconds (which is what I did originally), the infobox "assumes" it should be 00/01 and displays it. RedWolf (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * {{fixed}} I think I have come up with another approach to rounding that should fix the cases. If the seconds of a range location are specified, the the coordinates are rounded to 0.001 degree (up to 5 meter change). This will always display the seconds parameter as entered, but rounded to the nearest integer second. If seconds are not specified, then the coordinates are rounded to the nearest 0.01 degree (up to 500 meter shift, similar to what RedRose64 suggested), which will be shown as minutes, no seconds. The minutes will be rounded to the nearest integer minute. I think this covers all of the cases. —hike395 (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Help on filling things in
I just put this template on Hawaiian–Emperor seamount chain and was wondering about filling things in - specifically, the mountain range obviously exist because of the Hawaii hotspot, but I'm not sure where to put it in this template. Ideas? Ego White Tray (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This template was designed for terrestrial mountain ranges, so it may not work for underwater hotspot tracks. Nonetheless, I think you could set the orogeny parameter to be Hawaiian hotspot, and I think readers would understand. —hike395 (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You might consider Infobox Seamount. I'm not that familiar with it but is used over 100 times.&#32;– droll  &#91;chat&#93;  04:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It originally had the seamount infobox which didn't work well since it's designed for a single undersea mountain and not a range. The seamount one, for example, asked what range it was a part of, but this one is a range. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Undersea ranges
Related to above section, very little change would be needed for this template to work well with undersea ranges. As I see it, add a parameter to name a highest point as a depth for ranges that don't surface, to name an ocean or sea, and add parameters to name up to 9 islands (island1, island2, etc, listing island chains rather than individual islands when possible). After than, throw an undersea range on the test page, ideally as the second example, so users can see that it works, even if the idea never occurred to them. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the philosophy has been to create new infobox templates as needed, all of them calling the underlying infobox core template. That way, we don't get infoboxes being created with incorrect parameters. I would recommend copying this infobox over to something like Infobox undersea range and remove the parameters that don't make sense (like country, province, etc.). Let me know if you need help in doing it. —hike395 (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I must disagree with you. An undersea range and a land range are the exact same thing, the only difference is the water. So few new items would be required that making a second template would be silly. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Please hold off editing map_relief parameter
There is some sort of problem with it. I'm looking into it right now. —hike395 (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Indeed, there was a bug. I copied the code from Infobox mountain and now we should be good. The relief parameter is 1 by default, and you have to set to 0 to force it off. —hike395 (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Altyn-Tagh has error on coordinates
It is producing this as the error  : cannot have more than one primary tag per page I am not sure what I am doing wrong, or even if I am to blame. Please help. speednat (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The error occurs when you use the °N, °W template along with adding the range coordinates in the range infobox. Someone has already removed the coord template to fix the issue. RedWolf (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Type of range
The geology section of this template currently has three parameters: orogeny, period and type of rock. There is another parameter that would be useful: "type of range". Mountain ranges are formed by different processes, including fold and thrust, fault-block and volcanic activity.  Volcano guy  03:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess nobody maintains this template.....  Volcano guy  08:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * are you asking for help? Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was looking for people's opinions on such a parameter. And unfortunately, I do not know much on how infobox templates work so I am not the one to add it in the template.  Volcano guy  21:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I can add new parameters, rearrange parameters, etc. just provide a description of what you would like done. Frietjes (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like a parameter called "type of range" be added in the geology section so it will be possible to add the type for mountain rages.  Volcano guy  02:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I added formed_by with a link to Mountain formation, but I can certainly change it to geological_type with a link to List of mountain types instead if that's better (or you can do it!). Frietjes (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The current parameter is good enough. Thanks.  Volcano guy  22:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I indeed maintain it, but am on wikibreak. Thanks to Frietjes for the extra parameter. —hike395 (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Question
Recently I have been wondering why there are separate infoboxes for both mountains and mountain ranges. Can someone please explain? It's just that Infobox mountain range can be used in articles about individual mountains, especially large ones, since it is possible for a mountain to have secondary summits. Most if not all of the fields in this template can refer to a single mountain and be used the same way. The range coordinates could refer to the mountain coordinates and the highest point coordinates could refer to the highest summit of a mountain.  Volcano guy  13:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I created this template in order to port ~2000 Geobox mountain ranges over to infobox: I wanted to make mountain range infoboxes be stylistically similar to mountain infoboxes. However, there were decisions made about parameters in Geobox that contradict the multi-year-old consensus at the Mountain WikiProject. For example, Geobox mountain ranges have very detailed parameters about counties, states/provinces, countries, etc. An editor can provide up to 20 such parameters. Infobox mountain range simply has a location parameter. I think that the latter makes a lot of sense (it's much easier for editors), but I could not figure out how convert the Geobox articles without losing information. There's also two different location parameters for ranges, the "range_lat_d" style parameters, and the "lat_d" parameters. The former are central coordinates for the entire range, while the latter is the coordinate of the highest point. This may be confusing to mountain article editors and lead to incorrectly filled-out infoboxes.


 * You could suggest a merge at the Mountain WikiProject talk page. I'd probably be Neutral on such a merge. I am curious whether other editors would accept the Geobox-style parameters, which did not arise from a discussion, but were imposed by the original creator of Geobox. —hike395 (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Later: looking through the parameters of Infobox mountain, there are definitely some that are quite inappropriate for mountain ranges, e.g., prominence, isolation, parent_peak, easiest_route. I suppose you could put these into the "Highest point" section for the mountain, but that might be a little strange in an article about an isolated mountain. —hike395 (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The same thing could be said for range_coordinates and parent_range, which are for mountain ranges and not isolated mountains. There must a way to merge Infobox mountain range and Infobox mountain into a single infobox. I assume the use of the mountain and mountain range parameters could be explained. For example, in Infobox mountain there is a distinctive description for the volcanic_XXX parameters: If the mountain is a volcano, the arc, belt or field in which it is situated. Obviously these parameters are inappropiate for non-volcanic mountains since they are not volcanic in origin but they are included in Infobox mountain anyway.  Volcano guy  07:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK. I can take a first crack at writing a combined infobox, and we can see how it looks. After that, perhaps you can bring it up at the Mountain WikiProject? —hike395 (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Later: finished with the merge --- it was more intricate than I had expected. I (mostly) kept the formatting of Infobox mountain, with the section header organization from Infobox mountain range. You can see changes to mountain infoboxes here, and changes to mountain range infoboxes here. What do you think? Shall we proceed to asking for community input? —hike395 (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it looks good. Is it be possible to add two coordinates for mountains as there is for mountain ranges? There might not be highest point coordinates available for every mountain. And would it be possible to add the name of the highest point?  Volcano guy  14:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The merge has a union of the two existing parameters, so people can specify range_lat_d for a mountain, which would appear under "Range Coordinates" in the Geography section. Editors can use it to specify inexact coordinates of massifs, for example. There is also already a parameter, highest, where you can specify the name of the highest peak (separately from the name of the mountain/range). —hike395 (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Well we should proceed to ask for community input then.  Volcano guy  12:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Would you like to go to the WikiProject, or should I? —hike395 (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It would probably be better if you go to the WikiProject.  Volcano guy  20:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Since there is an area parameter it would be ideal to add a volume parameter as well.  Volcano guy  16:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Good idea. I made volume, volume_km3, volume_mi3, volume_note. Seems good for volcanoes. —hike395 (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My bad; I thought it was area because it just gives "Area" in the infobox but after looking at Infobox mountain range it gives area_km2 so I'm not sure if volume would be redundant with volume_km3 and volume_mi3 unless someone uses smaller measurements which I have not seen for mountains.  Volcano guy  21:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

area (and other parameters, like length or volume) are used for free-form entries, typically expressing uncertainty ranges, e.g., 4 to 6 km2. —hike395 (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't you find "Range coordinates" odd for individual mountains since they are not a range?  Volcano guy  23:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is odd. Many range articles have two different coordinates provided: the highest point, and the central or official point. If we show both as "Coordinates" (one in the "Highest Point" section and one in "Geography" section), then I think readers will be confused. Perhaps we can use a different word than "Range", like "Central" or "Official"? "Range coordinates" are not well-defined, so it's tough to figure out another word. —hike395 (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Central coordinates" would probably work. There is also the range issue Skookum1 mentioned, which is a problem for both ranges and individual mountains. I'm not sure what would be a better parameter name, perhaps "Part of" or "Parent landform"?  Volcano guy  22:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was to merge this template into Infobox mountain. Further discussion on the design of the merged template is at the Mountain WikiProject talk page —hike395 (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Merging
There was consensus at TfD to merge this template into Infobox mountain, but some issues remain to be resolved. A draft is at User:Hike395/MtnComboBox. How should the merge take place? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * . Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The following three things need to be done, in order:
 * Someone needs to run AWB on all articles that transclude Infobox mountain, to change to . This new parameter is already part of Infobox mountain, and will avoid errors in the next step.
 * Copy User:Hike395/MtnComboBox to Infobox mountain
 * Redirect Infobox mountain range to Infobox mountain
 * Step 1 is the most time-consuming step, and I've been super busy IRL -- haven't had spare time for doing it. Anyone feel like doing step 1? —hike395 (talk) 03:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Later --- I just did about 3% of step 1, taking about 30 minutes. So, clearly it's a big job. If I'm the only person doing it, it will take a while. —hike395 (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't do windoze so cannot run AWB to help. RedWolf (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)