Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains/General Discussion Archive 1

Pictures in infobox
I don't think that pictures should be included in the infobox. In many cases, pictures won't add anything except bandwidth cost. In the other cases, specifying that a picture goes in the info box will reduce the flexibility in layout available to the article editors. Stewart Adcock 18:37, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) (NB/ I'm assuming that in this context, picture means photograph.)


 * I would probably also vote not to include the picture as part of the infobox. I'm not sure what you meant about the bandwidth cost, whether it's in the infobox or in the main body of the article, how would that affect the bandwidth? I would think all articles deserve at least one picture, even if the mountain is not particularly interesting, given the premise that we tend to compare a mountain's beauty to other mountains. If we don't make the picture part of the infobox, my followup would be: should we define that it be placed in a particular location of the article? For example, at the top of the article. I think once we start on a prototype and see a few incarnations, we can get a better idea of what seems to work best. RedWolf 22:42, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * I like having pictures in infoboxes for the Tree of Life and for Solar system objects. See below for an initial stab at an infobox. --- hike395 05:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Geographical location
One thing that I think would be useful in the infobox is a thunbnail image of the world with the location of the mountain marked on it. This might take some work to create, but I think this would be extremely worthwhile. Stewart Adcock 18:37, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I like this idea but I'm not a graphics artist so I couldn't be much help in creating these images. It would be a good alternative to having a mountain's picture in the infobox. RedWolf 22:42, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Like RedWolf, I don't have the tools for making maps. However, given a lat/long, there are web pages that can plot maps. Should we deep link to them? I(I'm thinking of topozone.com for the US). There may be annoying licensing issues surrounding such links. -- hike395 05:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Location

There are a few features I like about it:
 * 1) It's simple. Some infoboxes have gotten extremely complex.
 * 2) The row "headers" are not done in bold (which I find ugly), but use a color to indicate row type. We could change the color, if people don't like green.

Note, I would follow Mav's policy of imperial / metric for mountains in the US, metric / imperial for mountains outside the US.

I'm reluctant to add mountaineering route-specific information to an infobox, because that data is non-unique (often there are many approaches to a mountain), and it is partially subjective and non-international (YDS isn't really calibrated, and Europeans probably don't find it intuitive, anyway).

I would love to add infoboxes to all of my favorite mountains. Let's work on this until we get a consensus. Thanks!! -- hike395 05:57, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Some initial thoughts: I like it, but the lat / long stuff can be on a single line called 'Location' or 'Geographic location' (with the continent in parens after the lat / long on the same line). Also the alternate units look like division to me - a more standard way of doing that would be to put the alternate units in parenthesis. The image should fill the white space in the box (I would even go so far as to remove the 'thumb' from the image code in order to get a better looking result - the box in a box looks ugly to me). We might also want to explore adding more info - such as mountain type (volcanic, techtonic, erosional...) and even subtype (type of volcano...). A heading color fill scheme may be nice for that. Age would also be an interesting thing to note (both of the mountain itself and its rocks). Oh ya, volume is always an interesting thing to note (at least for volcanoes), --mav 10:47, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I updated the table per mav's suggestions, the update shown to the right. The table is now constrained to be 5 pixels wider than the photo, elevation with parens, lat/long with decimal degrees, location in human-understandable form (new idea), type added(this could be either type of mountain or type of rock), age of rock added. The age of rock could be listed geologically, too (i.e., Quaternary)

I think volume is not a good thing to add to the infobox, because it is very difficult to estimate accurately --- where do you cut the mountain off at the bottom? And, so, there will be lots of different values in our primary sources, and a lot of editing back and forth. I propose that if people want to add it to the article, they should leave it in the text where it is easier to edit.

More comments? -- hike395 11:31, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Hearing no more comments, I'll move this infobox over to be the template, and start using it on some mountain pages. -- hike395 13:22, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My comments on the initial infobox: RedWolf 02:58, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * I would like to see the mountain name using a background color like other infoboxes
 * I think that Age of rock must be made an optional row as I'm certainly not going to know that in a lot of cases.
 * should the labels be linked? (e.g. First ascent, latitude/longitude) This seems to be the standard used in other infoboxes.
 * what about topography map reference for a row?
 * what about difficulty of easiest ascent? I think we should stay away from specific grading systems like YDS and just state something like: scramble, basic rock climb, snow/ice climb, major undertaking/expedition.
 * I guess we can leave the which comes first: feet or metres to be country specific. Most of the world is going to use metres first (including Canada I dare say!) but I suspect feet will be primary for the USA.
 * What are the "Types" available?


 * Thanks for the comments, RedWolf. A possible update that reflects your comments is shown to the right.
 * At first, I liked having the colored text and no background color. But, I tried out the light sky blue background on the right, and after a few hours, I decided I liked it more. That blue is icy, like glaciers, so I thought it was appropriate. Also, it is light, so it doesn't interfere with the text contrast. So, I can put links on top of it and it looks fine. So, I think you are right, RedWolf: let's have a light blue background and links.
 * Are you talking about linking to a site like http://www.topozone.com or http://terraserver.homeadvisor.msn.com ? I'm not sure how they feel about deep linking into their web site. There may be licensing issues involved.
 * Not sure what types are available. I took a stab at some examples on the main page --- I would think that either a kind of mountain, like a volcano or horn, or a type of rock, like metamorphic or sedimentary would be fine.
 * Updated main page to reflect optional rows.
 * More comments? -- hike395 20:58, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the light blue definitely better than that bright green you originally had (yup, I happened to see it before you changed it). Anyways, my followup comments:
 * I notice that Wilderness Area has color #B5954B at Infobox, which is a moderately dark brown. I originally envisioned a brown or a green for the mountains infobox just because of the association to rock color and forests. The light blue is another option due to association with sky.
 * I would prefer to see the Latitude/Longitude label fit on one line if possible if we are going to combine these two into one line. How about another term like Coordinates?
 * As well for Latitude/Longitude, I'm used to seeing it displayed in degrees, minutes, seconds format (e.g. 48° 55' 20" N)
 * I think "Type" should be linked to something but not sure what. The article is basically just going to be a list of possible types that one should choose from but this kind of list sounds to be better suited to MediaWiki. However, none of the other infoboxes I've seen have a MediaWiki link for the labels.
 * The straight HTML table code should be converted to Wiki table markup. I don't have a problem with the "raw" HTML but I think it's just better if we stick more with the Wiki format like they do with the Albums project.
 * As for the topo map reference, in Canada, Natural Resources Canada issues topo maps using the National Topographic System which divides the country into numbered sections and names. If someone else quotes a top map id such as 83E/03, it's easy to get that map from a map dealer by using that number. I was thinking of using the top map id in the info box (make this optional). I'm sure the US and other countries have something similar. &mdash; RedWolf 06:16, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Colors: I think whichever we select, it should be light. Here are three candidates (current light blue, a lighter version of National Park green, and a light version of the brown you suggested), I prefer the light blue:


 * Lat/Long: I went to decimal degrees to squeeze into one line. If you prefer DMS (which is fine with me), I think we have to go to Latitude and Longitude as separate entries, to give enough room. See update.
 * Type: I can make a List of mountain types page --- I bet mav can help out, also. I've made a start at the subpage /List of Mountain Types.
 * Wiki table markup: I'll give this a shot. See update.
 * Topo map reference: Now I see what you mean. In the US, the USGS topo maps have names, this can be another optional row.
 * More comments? -- hike395 03:25, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think we are almost there. Other than that, it comes down to the color selection. I think I'm more inclined to choose the brown over the green but can't quite agree to a yes on the light blue. I have duplicated the table and used the brown you listed just so it's easy to compare the two side by side. If we could get a few others to vote and the consensus is light blue, I would be okay with it then. We should also setup some mediawiki stuff for starting the box and for putting a notice on the talk page. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. &mdash; RedWolf 05:16, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * The two lines for latitude and longitude are okay with me.
 * The 'Type' looks good as well and what you added thus far at /List of Mountain Types, is an excellent start.
 * I'd recommend shortening the topo label to just 'Topographic map' or perhaps even 'Topo map' as that would provide more room for the other details column. I've done the latter in my alternate version below.


 * So, we'll need a Template:Mountain_box_start and a Template:Mountain. I'll give it a try. -- hike395 12:03, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have just added a link to Goings-on about nearing consensus on the infobox. Hopefully, we can get a few more comments and votes before proceeding to a final decision by the end of the week. RedWolf 05:32, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Light blue, light brown, or a even lighter stone color?


 * My preference is blue, followed closely by stone, both over light brown(which I think clashes with the blue and purple of links). Other than that, the shortened topo label is fine with me. -- hike395

I agree, the lighter stone color is better than the light brown so it's down to light stone vs light blue at the moment. RedWolf 02:40, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * I prefer the light brown myself.  &#151;d8uv  (t)  02:49, Apr 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Both RedWolf and I dislike the light brown. If you had to choose between light blue and the light stone color, which would you prefer? We need a tie-breaker vote -- hike395 11:55, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I thought it said light brown up there. So much for my reading comprehension. I'd go with the stone.  &#151;d8uv  (t)  05:09, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week since we started hacking on the latest version of the infobox. I'd like to start using it. How shall we break our tie on the colors? RedWolf: how much do you prefer light stone over light blue? A little? A lot? -- hike395 03:20, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I personally think the light stone makes a better visual analogy.  &#151;d8uv  (t)  05:09, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, we'll go with the stone color, then. I'll move the template up to the main project page. -- hike395 05:15, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I feel it not quite right (I can't think of the exact word I'm looking for) that stone gets chosen over your choice by a matter of one other vote. There's nothing saying we cannot use more than one color in our project color scheme. We could use both stone and light blue and just choose a context when to use one over the other. We could for example, use light blue for certain mountain types such as volcanos? Or perhaps stone for mountains in the northern hemisphere and light blue for south? Or use light blue for mountains in the Himalayas? Just a thought. If you prefer we stay with one color and you are just fine with the stone color, then I guess we can close the discussion on the initial infobox and proceed with using it in articles. RedWolf 06:43, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

To answer your question hike395, I preferred the light stone over the light blue a fair bit because:
 * the stone makes the background blue in pictures stand out better IMHO
 * a brown or greenish color was my original selections on color choice as I tend to think of those colors when associating with mountains (rock color and forest color). The color for wilderness areas is a darker brown color so the light stone color would align better.
 * the links on the lhs side using my link colors look better with stone than light blue. I admit, a weak point.

As a said though above, I wouldn't have a problem using light blue for a smaller percentage of mountain types or some other context.

RedWolf 06:58, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's OK with me for light blue to lose 2-1. To my mind, light stone was almost as good. I mainly wanted to start to use the infobox, since I think it is very useful for the readers.


 * By the way, I believe that multiple alternative colors in an infobox (to signal different contexts) is mainly for the gratification of Wiki-nerds, rather than our readers. I bet that the vast majority of readers who read articles with infoboxes don't notice the differences in colors. So, yes, I am biased towards just choosing one color and getting on with using it. I'm competely happy in abandoning light blue, unless you feel strongly that we should have multiple infobox colors. -- hike395 07:13, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no strong desire to use multiple colors although if others wanted to do that, I'd be happy to accommodate it. Ok, sounds like we have consensus on the infobox layout and color. Let's move ahead with using it. I'll add our selected light stone color (#e7dcc3) to Infobox to note it's now reserved for this project. RedWolf 02:23, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Use of prime and Prime entities
I originally used the &amp;prime; and &amp;Prime; entities for some of the articles I created for mountains. However, the resulting output looks a bit strange (at least on a Mac/Mozilla). I have been considering switching it back to simply use the single and double quotes. I noticed that hike395 just updated the template to use the entities. What does everyone else think? RedWolf 05:42, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * I apologize for making the change without discussion. I saw the &amp;prime; and &amp;Prime; at Mount Robson, and it looked so much more professional on WinXP/IE6 that I thought "That should be in the template." I don't know how it looks on other browsers.-- hike395 15:49, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Not a problem, just mentioning the issue I've had with using those entities on the Mac. I'll have to one of the winpc's at work to see how it looks. The effect I saw on the Mac was a lot of extraneous spacing and what appeared to be a mix of fonts between proportional and non-proportional fonts. Maybe I'll check it in a couple other Macs browsers for curiosity. Could be Mozilla just hasn't implemented it correctly. RedWolf 04:13, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * I just tried Safari and the entities look just fine so it appears to be a Mozilla issue. RedWolf 05:33, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Mozilla is used by 12.2% of Wikipedia readers, so if it looks bad on Windows/Mozilla, we should revert. Maybe we should revert anyway. -- hike395 05:56, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I tried it on Mozilla 1.6 on a pc at work and it looked fine so it looks like the issue is only specific to the Mac version. RedWolf 01:01, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)