This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Infobox rockunit template. |
|
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This template was considered for merging with Template:Infobox landform on 2014 November 13. The result of the discussion was "do not merge". |
The type section of a rock unit is not necessarily the place that it is named after. The Bracklesham Group for instance is named after Bracklesham in Sussex, but the type section is at Whitecliff Bay on the Isle of Wight. We need an extra parameter I think to separate these two different things. In many cases the two parameters will be the same, but there are a significant number that aren't, such as the Woolwich Formation, which is obviously named for Woolwich, but has a type section at Gilbert's Pit in Charlton, not a million miles away but they are not the same. Mikenorton ( talk) 16:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
|Namedfor=
and |Namedby=
should be moved into a new section titled "Naming" which could use new parameters for name origin and translation if the name isn't English.
Volcano
guy
22:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)As I found it very hard to read the section header text in infoboxes that are used for some of the periods, Triassic in particular, I have created an alternative in the sandbox (see testcases) which uses a similar style to the navbox/footer templates (for example {{ Triassic footer}}. It keeps the period colours as side borders, but using light grey as an accessibility compliant contrast as the background to the text, this would also appear grey if no period is set, rather than the light blue which could be mistaken for some of the Jurassic ages/stages. As the template is used around 6,300 times, I would like to know if any editors have comments on any issues these changes may present or any suggestions or alternatives for improving the template, and also to establish consensus to make these changes. EdwardUK ( talk) 15:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Making request as reasonable time since related wikiprojects informed of above discussion and no objections raised. Change to the section headers so that period colour displays as a border, and changing default colour to grey as can be seen on testcases page. Please change the lines: abovestyle=, headerstyle= and belowstyle= to match the version in the sandbox (but do not remove the #invoke:check section at the bottom) EdwardUK ( talk) 13:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I like the current layout: it has parallel structure with, e.g., {{ Triassic footer}}. — hike395 ( talk) 03:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Given the fact that this infobox has a parameter for area it would make sense to also include a parameter for volume. Volcano guy 19:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I am looking for any policy on usage for "region" and "region_ts" for geology pages. Maybe the answers include "there isn't a policy" or "a policy isn't needed.
I presume "region" is carried over from prior infoboxes from other subjects where the use in "rock units" can have different meaning and usage. I think the idea is to have a way to designate distributions that either small parts of states/nations or parts of multiple states/nations.
I have been particularly working with rock units restricted to either the Kansas Pennsylvanian-Permian Midcontinent Sea/Estuary (a striking amount of geological science restricted to a small region) or the Western Interior Seaway. The earliest WP articles often gave the linkless "midcontinent" as the region. I have found common uses for "midcontinent" (emphasis on the plural) each relatively conventional, but inconsistent with each other; e.g., the center of the continent, the middle of the continent distinct from the east and west coast, the midcontinent hydrocarbon exploration region, or the "Midcontinent Sea", which I have seen shortened to "Midcontinent" in publications. When Heckel, P.H. (2008) writes of "Pennsylvanian cyclothems in Midcontinent North America as far-field effects of waxing and waning of Gondwana ice...", their "Midcontinent" is exclusively the Pennsylvanian-Permian "Midcontinent Sea", of which there are scores of WP articles within that smaller region. The interior Cretaceous units have been stated as "Midcontinent" yet extent over a third of the continent.
Must region follow explicit definition, or may it follow pragmatic naming, that is, relatively easy to understand if not entirely formal?
Guidance? Or "don't worry about it"?
IveGoneAway (
talk)
12:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Infobox rockunit template. |
|
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This template was considered for merging with Template:Infobox landform on 2014 November 13. The result of the discussion was "do not merge". |
The type section of a rock unit is not necessarily the place that it is named after. The Bracklesham Group for instance is named after Bracklesham in Sussex, but the type section is at Whitecliff Bay on the Isle of Wight. We need an extra parameter I think to separate these two different things. In many cases the two parameters will be the same, but there are a significant number that aren't, such as the Woolwich Formation, which is obviously named for Woolwich, but has a type section at Gilbert's Pit in Charlton, not a million miles away but they are not the same. Mikenorton ( talk) 16:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
|Namedfor=
and |Namedby=
should be moved into a new section titled "Naming" which could use new parameters for name origin and translation if the name isn't English.
Volcano
guy
22:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)As I found it very hard to read the section header text in infoboxes that are used for some of the periods, Triassic in particular, I have created an alternative in the sandbox (see testcases) which uses a similar style to the navbox/footer templates (for example {{ Triassic footer}}. It keeps the period colours as side borders, but using light grey as an accessibility compliant contrast as the background to the text, this would also appear grey if no period is set, rather than the light blue which could be mistaken for some of the Jurassic ages/stages. As the template is used around 6,300 times, I would like to know if any editors have comments on any issues these changes may present or any suggestions or alternatives for improving the template, and also to establish consensus to make these changes. EdwardUK ( talk) 15:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Making request as reasonable time since related wikiprojects informed of above discussion and no objections raised. Change to the section headers so that period colour displays as a border, and changing default colour to grey as can be seen on testcases page. Please change the lines: abovestyle=, headerstyle= and belowstyle= to match the version in the sandbox (but do not remove the #invoke:check section at the bottom) EdwardUK ( talk) 13:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I like the current layout: it has parallel structure with, e.g., {{ Triassic footer}}. — hike395 ( talk) 03:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Given the fact that this infobox has a parameter for area it would make sense to also include a parameter for volume. Volcano guy 19:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I am looking for any policy on usage for "region" and "region_ts" for geology pages. Maybe the answers include "there isn't a policy" or "a policy isn't needed.
I presume "region" is carried over from prior infoboxes from other subjects where the use in "rock units" can have different meaning and usage. I think the idea is to have a way to designate distributions that either small parts of states/nations or parts of multiple states/nations.
I have been particularly working with rock units restricted to either the Kansas Pennsylvanian-Permian Midcontinent Sea/Estuary (a striking amount of geological science restricted to a small region) or the Western Interior Seaway. The earliest WP articles often gave the linkless "midcontinent" as the region. I have found common uses for "midcontinent" (emphasis on the plural) each relatively conventional, but inconsistent with each other; e.g., the center of the continent, the middle of the continent distinct from the east and west coast, the midcontinent hydrocarbon exploration region, or the "Midcontinent Sea", which I have seen shortened to "Midcontinent" in publications. When Heckel, P.H. (2008) writes of "Pennsylvanian cyclothems in Midcontinent North America as far-field effects of waxing and waning of Gondwana ice...", their "Midcontinent" is exclusively the Pennsylvanian-Permian "Midcontinent Sea", of which there are scores of WP articles within that smaller region. The interior Cretaceous units have been stated as "Midcontinent" yet extent over a third of the continent.
Must region follow explicit definition, or may it follow pragmatic naming, that is, relatively easy to understand if not entirely formal?
Guidance? Or "don't worry about it"?
IveGoneAway (
talk)
12:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)