User talk:Cburnett/Geography

=July 17, 2005 archive start=

template:US state
A couple of comments about your recent changes. We clearly have different preferences on how compact the table should be. I strongly lean minimalist, but I suspect we both agree comprehensibility is most important. BTW - you didn't respond on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._states about adding FIPS code or motto. What do you think? -- Rick Block 21:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Adding km2 to the Area label doesn't work for Kansas (which has measurements in both English and metric units).  Missouri (not using the template yet) also lists English and metric units.
 * 2) Perhaps not obvious, but the ISO 3166-2 code includes the USPS abbreviation so listing both is actually redundant.
 * 3) I don't mean to argue about it (just curious, really), but what don't you like about including the statehood order parenthetically after the date?
 * 4) The way you have the title for the population entries makes the parenthetical rank look (to me) like it is somehow related to 2000, rather than all the population data being as of the 2000 census.  Please don't fix this by reverting the ranks back to their own lines.
 * 5) Given you've changed width and length back to their own lines I'll stop trying to think of a way to combine max/mean/min elevations on one line.

Thanks for your comments Rick. :) Yes, I certainly agree. Comprehensibility is key. I'll respond to your FIPS, etc. comments when I get a chance. Cburnett 21:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) I think we should make them all km&sup2; or all mi&sup2; or both.  It is a template to provide unity across state data.
 * 2) I know that, but does everyone else?  Does a 5th grader know who ISO is? :)  And which really came first: USPS switching to 2-letter or ISO defining 3166-2?  The real driving reason I wanted to put USPS abbreviation in the infobox is I saw a lot of states specify it inside the article in haphazard locations, but typically in the opening paragraph.  First step to not needing it in the article.
 * 3) On a web page, width is in short supply but length is not.  (I absolutely hate side-scrolling; there's page up/down but no page left/right).  For me all the changes I made are putting things to keep them from wrapping because they're too wide.  I don't mind scrolling down to read more. My definition of "compact" is a matter of width not brevity.  Wrapped lines/data are confusing and not particularly necessary when things can easily be moved to another line
 * 4) Without making the template wider I don't think you can.


 * With the current version there are problems with Arizona and Texas (at least with NS 7, W98, and "classic" skin - seems "nowrap" fails to have any effect). Also note that with this version most entries fit in the left half of the horizontal space.  In some sense (perhaps only theoretically) I think this means the table at its current width is roughly twice as long as it could be.  I don't think we're going to shrink the US map to reduce the width of the table to less than 300px, so I'd prefer we reformatted some things to use more of the available width.  We should at least redistribute the white space so everything isn't piled up in the left half of the table. -- Rick Block 01:19, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

state elevations
Hi - I've been trying to track down where some of the state data originally came from, and mean elevation is one of numbers for which I can't find the source. You just linked the state infobox template to List of U.S. states by elevation. The source that's listed in this article does not include mean elevation figures. Do you have any idea where the mean elevation numbers came from? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:07, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * The information in the tables was originally taken from the US state info box on each of the 50 state articles (links in the topmost table). This source is also the reason the information is given in meters instead of feet, many of the state articles only give the information in meters and I did not feel like doing the conversion when the original tables were being built. --Allen3 talk 01:35, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * That was going to be my guess, but you beat me to the punch. Now, as to where the mean data came from that's in the infoboxes....not sure.  I don't find anything on the talk page.  I see Rick has asked on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states. Cburnett 01:39, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm still trying to chase the mean elevation numbers back to their original (non-wikipedia) source.  The actual ultimate goal is to update the state infoboxes to have both metric and US measurements, clearly indicating the original source (which, I think, for the current measurements was US not metric).  It's currently kind of hard to validate the metric numbers we have since it's not obvious the originals were not metric.  What the list article currently says is that the source of the numbers is a USGS web page, and linking to this list from the state infoboxes sort of implies the numbers in the state infoboxes came from here.  As long as the numbers match up (and can be verified from the cited source), I don't care how we got here.  If we're going to add US measurements to the list article, they should definitely NOT be converted from the existing metric numbers since I'd be willing to bet the metric numbers were converted (at some time, by somebody) from the (non-metric) USGS originals.  So, the question remains - where did the mean elevation numbers come from? Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

List of rivers by length
Thanks for fixing my hack of the legend table. The little markup (html or wiki) I've done is usually trial and error. It took me at least a good 30-40 clicks of the Preview button to make the bottom table here from the one above it, and the only difference is moving the county seal. Niteowlneils 10:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem. I've been doing web stuff for long enough that I'm down to a couple previews on a good day and a dozen on a bad day. :) I can't even recall how many for List of Star Trek: TNG episodes. Cburnett 19:03, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

=July 17, 2005 archive end=