Template talk:Geobox River

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Watershed and instructions 2 New infobox vs. old one 3 Idea behind this infobox 4 References 5 How about this? 6 Questions

[edit] Watershed and instructions

As a geographer, I like this template, particularly the facility to incorporate both an image and a map. Being British I was confused by the term "watershed" which is usually taken to mean the higher ground between two river basins. I would have used the term "catchment area". However, I have looked the term up and it appears that either will do - but "catchment area" has fewer disambiguations. The template is useful because it doesn't display fields which are not filled in, thus not making ugly markups where the information is not immediately available. As a very new editor some explanation of how to fill in the table would be useful, or is this available elsewhere? Thanks anyway. I intend to copy and paste to try it out fairly soon.Harkey Lodger 18:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As of specialities of this template they are described at Category:Geobox, otherwise you simply copy the blank template which is at the bottom of the template page to your text an fill in any fields you have the data for (write the text after the equal sign, spaces at the beginning are ignored). As to the term "watershed", I first used the term "drainage basin" which I was familiar with but later switched for "watershed" (a new word for me then) because it didn't take up so much space and seemed widely used on Wikipedia in this meaning. Anyway, if you feel it inappropriate or confusing for most of the English speakers I can switch back to "drainage basin" (or "catchment area"). – Caroig 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just tried it out in a very simple way on River Derwent, Yorkshire which I am currently researching. It's ideal for my way of working. If I want to put references for the data into the page, how would that work, please? I think the term "watershed" is OK. It was just unfamiliar to me used in that way.Harkey Lodger 21:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? If you want just general references for the article, put them at the bottom of the page under References heading. If you want to create indexed footnotes^[1], put in </ref>the resource</ref> after the piece of information and then add <references /> under the References heading. If you want to use the footnotes inside the infobox I'm afraid this isn't possible. For formatting the references you can use the Citation templates. The data can be on a single line. Thus you can add e.g. <ref>{{cite book | last = Doe | first = John | title = A book about something | date = 2007 | location = London}}</ref> which would produce:^[2]. – Caroig 22:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest switching to "drainage basin", or if that seems too long, just "basin" would probably suffice, given the context. Watershed isn't confusing for most English speakers numerically (I'd guess, at least), it's a US/non-US thing (or perhaps NA/non-NA). It is pretty confusing though, since the term watershed means totally different things on either side of the pond (water divide vs. drainage basin). Alai 03:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New infobox vs. old one

Would it be possible to include a completed sample of the visual presentation of the new version for discussion (or a link to a page on which it is being used)? My first thought is that a photograph at the top might make for a more inviting (and varied) introduction to an article than a map (as with Infobox city). --Malepheasant 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I see that examples are linked from the bottom of the WikiProject Rivers page. --Malepheasant 00:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

When using the old template, I often like to include citations for some details, such as a GNIS reference for geographic coordinates and elevations. (Monday Creek for an example.) This is especially useful for details (like geographic coordinates) that don't really flow well in the text of an article, and helps reduce the need for inline citations in the body by moving them to the infobox. Is there a way to introduce citations into a more complex template such as this one? I gave it a try just now and it seemed to cause errors and jumbled text. --Malepheasant 01:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this isn't possible, the new infobox acts rather like a database, so the input fields need to be just plain numeric or textual values. I haven't encountered this when creating the new infobox. It might be possible to include say source_location_citation (etc.) fields if required. – Caroig 06:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the new infobox, but agree with Malepheasant that a picture would better first. The MOS says to start the article with a right aligned image, and while a map is certainly an image, I think a photograph is generally better. It is also easier for most editors to take a photo than to make a map, so the first image should be the one that is easier to obtain. I also think that most readers will get a better first idea of the river by seeing a picture of it than by seeing a map.

Despite the labels, I suppose there is nothing to stop someone from using a photo first, then putting the map in second (any image could go in either place, with a proper caption, just the labels would be "wrong"). Would it make sense to label the fields Image One and Image Two (and Caption One and Caption Two)? Then the "directions" could explain one is for a map and the other a photo, and give a preferred order but leave it up to the editor?

Last question: Is there an easy way to translate old river infoboxes to the new one, or do we just have to paste in the old data by hand? I would like to update some articles' boxes, but also want to wait until the new box is the final version. Thanks for doing this! Ruhrfisch 15:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks for the feedback. Before I reply let me say a few words about why I created this template. It's not so much about the graphic style but rather about the information it contains, what purpose the infobox serves. In my view, the role of infoboxes is to summarize the important data in a uniform way so no matter what the article is about, the reader should find the information (such as country, region, map, length, height etc.) in the same place. There are, as I see it, too many articles (not only about rivers), where I am rather surprised what data find in the infobox and also many others where the infoboxes contain short stories (like the stream lies some km northest from the village center) which I think belong to the article. I got inspired by the Template: Infobox Country and Template:Infobox City which too are rather strict concerning the data they can contain and don't allow for stories in them. I'm not saying this is the right view, it's how I see it and therefore I decided to rather create a new infobox from scratch than to change the current template. (I created two more templates using the same style and syntax Template:Infobox Mountain Range and Template:Infobox Mountain Summit).

Anyway, as for the suggestions mentioned above:

• map or picture first - I can add a switch to the template which would allow to use either map or a photograph first. Or if just a photograph exists put it first, otherwise put the map first. I would rather keep map and 'image fields as it is easier to manipulate the fields for an automated system (transfer to another database any future template change). I personally like the map first because the photograph is not always very representative as it shows just a selected section of the river.
• automated translation of infoboxes - If there's enough interest in that, there are two ways how to achieve that. I could create an intermediary template which would analyze the old infobox (I'm not sure if MediaWiki syntax is powerful enough to achieve that) and insert the new one with the data appropriatly filled in. Or, and that might be easier for me and producing a cleaner code, write a PHP script that would read the old infobox and produce the code for the new, that would have to be on my server. In both cases it would have to somehow strip the values if they are too story-like.
• citations in the infobox - Should there be a way to do so or not? Wouldn't it make the infobox again rather messy?

Thank you, Caroig, for your work to improve the encyclopedia. I agree that the river infobox could use an update and expansion. I must insist, however, that any change should be able to accomodate the citation of sources, per the demands of the Wikipedia project. The infobox in the Amazon River article, for instance, which currently employs the proposed replacement, includes geographic coordinates for the source of the river. Where is this coming from? I'm not asking you: The entire article is poorly referenced, with only three statements directly cited; otherwise, we are left with a slew of external links. This bit of detail, the geographic coordinates of the source of the river, is screaming to have a {{Fact}} tag slapped to it. But where do I put it? I guess I can suggest on the article's talk page that a citation be provided somewhere?: No, no, no. The ability of any Wikipedia editor to easily request a source for a stated fact (and to remove it if a source can't be provided) is a well-established practice of the project; the fact template has been in use since at least the summer of 2005. If the present river template were to be replaced by a format that cannot accomodate the citation of sources (per the verifiablity mandate), I would feel compelled to challenge the action to a higher authority on Wikipedia than the rivers project. A similarity to other recently-established templates isn't enough: Verifiability is more important than just about anything else, and the templates you've started should probably be adjusted to accomodate that need.

More generally, I disagree with the notion that flexibility within the fields of an infobox template is inherently bad. I appreciate (and agree) that the most important purpose of an infobox is to present information with some consistency, but who is this straw man who tells big stories in the infobox? I think that such instances would be best addressed on a case-by-case basis, by reversion or re-wording, or by discussing the matter on the article's talk page, or with a message on the offender's talk page, rather than by tying the hands of every other Wikipedia editor.

For context, I am a (very slight) participant in another WikiProject, that for the the National Register of Historic Places, which regularly places articles on the Wikipedia front page as part of the "Did You Know?" column. These new articles use a flexible infobox template (such as that included in George Stickney House, featured on the front page on January 15, and which cites sources for the information it provides). I'm strongly in favor of improving the current infobox for rivers, but I'm also strongly in favor of it being flexibile for a variety of needs, per the demands of verifiability and of attempting to write good prose for this encyclopedia.

I'm glad, Caroig, for your efforts. But I don't want a presently-useful template to be replaced by one that rather dramatically limits its functions. I think that flexibility is probably very important here, for this template. Thanks for reading, and I hope that what I've written will be given some consideration.-- Malepheasant 19:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with everything you've written about verifiabilty of any facts on Wikipedia and I hope I've never written anything that would have seemed to object to it. But I'm afraid my point is something different. And that is what purpose the infobox should serve. I believe, and one of the links you provided before stated so, that the infobox is, in the first place, a summary of some basic facts from the article. It should be the first place where a reader looks when they want to learn something about the subject. And when they need further information, they can read the article, check the resources etc.

I had a look at (as an example) Salem River. That is exactly the reason why I created the other template. Because I think this one doesn't serve its purpose to give a clear summary. I think the textual information about the location/mouth should be in the article and the infobox should rather contain just a name of the county, range etc. Most of the information in the infobox is somewhere in the text anyway, so shouldn't the footnote indexes be rather there, where they would be more disruptive? As of the article on the Amazon, it's real bad and not quoting sources there is a serious problem as most of the data vary a lot according to the source. There's a place in the article where the location of the Amazon source is described/disputed and I believe there's the right place for the links to resources. And in this case, when the source location (and thus coordinates) is unclear I think it has nothing to do in the infobox (the same should probably apply to the length of the Amazon, do not include it in the infobox if it is not a proven value). I'm from Europe and everything here's mapped in great detail and I don't think there's any need to quote the source where the coordinates come from. Because they link to the source of that information already. To a map. If you doubt the reliability of the data you click on a map and thanks to Google or even more detailed maps here in Europe you can check it easily. Template:Infobox City which is used on many prominent pages has the same fields for coordinates, with no option for adding the source. And no one seems to mind (even when it's unclear what place in the city the coordinates show, one would expect it to be the center). But that is coordinates, most other data is always mentioned in the article too and there I believe is the place for links to the sources. (Hope my English doesn't make this section difficult to understand thanks to the double meaning of the word source).

I'm sorry for that lengthy answer. I just wanted to show my point is not whether citing sources is important or not (it definitely is) but whether the right place for the footnote indexes and too long texts is in the infobox or not. I believe not. (I read most links you provided but they were about the point I don't dispute). I believe the infoboxes should be neatly organized so that a general reader would easily find the required information. Both relatively new infoboxes Template: Infobox Country and Template:Infobox City behave in this way so I suggested the same style for rivers. – Caroig 22:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand the rationale for the proposed replacement, but I don't think it fully suits the needs of the template as it is presently used. What you're suggesting is that if anybody wishes to directly cite 15°31′05″S, 71°45′55″W as the source of the Amazon, then they'll first have to find a good way to write those numbers into the main text of the article. That shouldn't be, and that is not the case now; what you're proposing is a reduction in usability. (It might be worth noting here that if you click on the above link and then request a Google map of the location, you'll be told that a map is not available.) As for the Salem River, thank you for mentioning it: I recently added a photograph and an infobox to that article, and in the infobox I identified the beginning of the river in two ways, as 39°34′23″N, 75°30′44″W, and as Upper Pittsgrove Township, New Jersey, and I directly cited the sources for both details, with unobtrusive superscript references. Sadly, this river does not seem to arise in a named mountain range, as one might prefer. What you're suggesting is that this method of identification and citation of the source of a river is not legitimate. I vehemently disagree. If one finds the presentation unsightly, then an adjustment to the fields of the current infobox template can probably be made to accomodate that interest, or suggestions can be made on an article-by-article basis. But as it stands the new version of the template would change the very means of presenting and citing information on Wikipedia, to a position of inflexibility, for the sole purpose, it would appear, of accomodating a template. I think that this proposed replacement of an actively-used template should either be substantially modified or withdrawn, on the grounds that it does not suit the needs of the template as it is currently used. Where you are from does not enter into it; what is proposed is the replacement of a template, in active use globally, with a version that cannot accomodate a number of its present uses, including one of the project's core rules. You're proposing that 39°34′23″N, 75°30′44″W must somehow must be written into the text of the Salem River article if one wishes to directly cite a source for the information. The implementation of that demand would be disruptive to the project. You state that an infobox is not a good place to provide footnoted source citations; on the contrary, I think it is an ideal place for such details. New editors commonly regard an infobox as a bunch of gobbledey-gook; that's why people commonly place the following on pages that employ infoboxes:

<!-- The following few lines create the "Infobox" table template. Please scroll down to edit the main content of the article. -->

The infobox is exactly where such citations belong. And I can't know for certain, but I have a feeling that there wouldn't be such an objection to the ability to cite sources in the template if it were something that could be easily done in this proposed "database" style. I think that the demands of the Wikipedia project should supercede the demands of an infobox style. And to repeat, I think that the ability to cite sources freely as needed is more important than just about any other consideration on the Wikipedia project, and that this proposed replacement of the Template:Infobox River should either be accordingly modified or withdrawn if it cannot accomodate this well-established usage. -- Malepheasant 02:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Malepheasant - as much as I agree that we need a better Infobox for Rivers and like the new Infobox, the ability to add <ref> tags is an absolute requirement here and everywhere on Wikipedia. Ruhrfisch 12:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idea behind this infobox

I must repeat what I wrote at the beginning. I wanted to use some infoboxes in the articles I was (and am going to) edit/create. I didn't feel the existing infoboxes for rivers or mountains were satisfactory from various reasons. So I created these versions and started using them. And was advised to post them on appropriate projects. They are created with a certain idea in mind. The idea is An infobox on Wikipedia is a consistently-formatted table which is present in articles with a common subject to provide summary information consistently between articles or improve navigation to closely related articles in that subject. (Source: Help:Infobox, emphasis by myself.) I considered the style and logic in Template:Infobox City (which is probably the most used, generally accepted infobox template on Wikipedia) and Template:Infobox Country satisfactory and based my templates on them. They follow a different concept then, e.g., the current River infobox. And I feel it's a bit pointless to discuss that I should change something which I wanted as a feature. The proposed infoboxes try to create a consitently looking set of infoboxes which enable the common user to simply copy the blank infobox, filling in any fields they have data for without bothering them with a need to put in unit links, formatting the coordinates etc.

Wikipedia is first of all the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I would emphasize the word encyclopedia. Which puts on it a bit different requirements than if it were a scientific paper. I believe it means it should put a lot of emphasis on the style too because an encyclopedia's main role is to be a source of information for the readers. I believe (I do not vehemently say) an infobox is to an article on Wikipedia the same as an abstract is to a scientifix paper. And I don't think citations are used within abstracts.

Most of the data in the infoboxes is used somewhere in the article body too. I differ from you in the view that there is the right place for citation links. I might have expressed myself badly in the example on the Amazon. In my view, the article should contain a textual description of the source, e.g. The river starts in a small pool under a lime cliff in a remote area of Nevado Mismi in the Peruvian Andes at the elevation of 5000m^{citation link} (this is just an example). And as with most other geography related articles, the coordinates are to be consistently found in the infobox. My point about Europe was that there's mostly no dispute about what the current of the river is, where its source is located and therefore the coordinates can be easily read from a map (there are very detailed ortographic maps freely available all over Europe). Is there a need to include the source of that information? Most cities using any infobox template have coordinates attached. Where do they come from? Mostly from maps on Google etc. Is that bad? Can't anybody by clicking on the map check if it is correct? I haven't seen any objection against this practice on Template:Infobox City nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. And census is what drives Wikipedia.

The proposed infobox uses similar input fields as the Template:Infobox City. Coordinates are entered as separate values for all degrees, minutes, seconds etc. All numeric fields must be entered as non-formatted values because the template automatically adds the units linked to appropriate articles. No other values can be entered into these fields yet this template is generaly accepted and it is probably the largest big infobox as to number of articles using to it. Even a beginning Wikipedia editor can simply add data into these templates, because they only have to provide the figures or textual data and don't need to know anything about how to format units or coordinates.

To summ up, this infobox offers an alternative to the current river infobox with a different approach. I'm willing to do any changes which don't go against the idea behind this template (such as whether the map or the image should go first, to me a map says more, but to a general reader, the image is definitely better and I'm going to remove the map_first switch completely because it would be against what I advocate, against consistency). No one's forcing anyone to use this template, it's simply a proposal. I think it's up to all users and all editors of Wikipedia whether it's accepted or not. – Caroig 17:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone appreciates all of your hard work very much. I think we all also agree that a better River Infobox is needed and I personally like what you have done and plan to use it once this is resolved. It's your box, but I would leave the map first or last switch in - I think it is useful to have a choice even if most leave it at the default setting.

I am not a programmer and am not able to code for infoboxes, so I do not know what is possible and what is not. However, looking at the example code for the San Jose, California Infobox City at Template talk:Infobox City, they use <ref> tags in the box in their example, and looking at the article, there are two footnoted refs there in the infobox that work (i.e. clicking on the footnote takes you to the ref and vice versa). So I guess I don't understand why it can work on your model (the Infobox City template) but not here (in the Infobox River Geography template). Could you ask the editor(s) who worked on the Infobox City how to include <ref> tags? To sum up myself, I do not see how the ability to include <ref> tags would go against the idea of the infobox, especially when your model template has this ability. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 20:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I've checked that, there's no special coding, there's just a bit different approach, less automated. That infobox simply takes whatever value the field is assigned and prints km² after it. That's why there's first the number, then the upperscript index and then the km². My template goes somewhat further, it expects to be given just the numeric value from which it automatically calculates the square miles or vice-versa (the same works for meters of course). This way one neither has to supply the unit with its link, nor the imperial/metric equivalent. It would be easy to get around this if Wikipedia administrators added certain extension ([1]) which is a part of Mediawiki (the software Wikimedia runs on) but not yet implemented here. If I knew a way how to strip just the numeric value from the field… A possible solution for now would be to remove that automatically-calculate-imperial/metric-values and nicely-format-the-figure feature. But that would still create the same output figure superscript-index unit as in Template talk:Infobox City, so not the perfect solution either. I'm not giving up, I'm looking for a way but it's not such a high priority for me. – Caroig 21:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm sorry if the previous post sounded rather rash but I simply didn't undestand the reasons behind and style of some of User:Malepheasant posts. As of that map_first switch, I leave it there, it doesn't hinder anything. The default style remains as you suggested the image first. – Caroig 21:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

1. ^ This is the first reference
2. ^ Doe, John (2007). This is the second resource. 

• Myself (2007). This is the third resource.

Thank you. I was thinking of footnotes for the information inside the box but I think probably these could be added as a sub - section somewhere in the references section to keep things simple.Harkey Lodger 09:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How about this?

It still makes me think of that… So how about this? It would be easy to code in. What if there exists, for those fields where it might be useful, an additional field allowing to have some kind of a note displayed after the information itself? I mean, there would still exist a field such as length allowing only for a plain numeric value. But there would also be a possibility to add length_note field which would be printed on the same line, after the length field, possibly in smaller script to separate it from the information itself. It could be used for some explaining text (a word or two as well as for footnote indexes or whatever the authors feel appropriate). The note field could for instance contain a notice from which source the length is measured, if the river has two sources of approximately the same importance (as e.g. in the case of the Danube) and I can think of a lot of other uses.

It has a drawback, it's not clear-cut for a beginning editor and it's something untested and non-standard. I guess not every item would need the extra field. But it would still be very easy to implement it for any field if there was a need for it, without breaking the code or making it more complicated. Some fields could have a combined note field, e.g. not a separate _note field for every left or right tributary, but just for tributaries as such.

On the other side it would be very easy to manipulate with the data from such, e.g. when a template any sort of infobox layout change is made, or for transfering it to other language Wikipedias. – Caroig 23:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It sounds OK to me. Would all fields need this (potentially), or do some allow insertion of a ref tag already? If so, can these be marked or noted? It sounds as if the ones that expect only a number would need it, but how about text fields? Also, some info boxes have a free parameter field that can be inserted at will (university box IIRC), could there be a ref field that could be inserted at will? Again it might be useful to mark where it could be inserted (not in middle of deg min sec). Thanks, Ruhrfisch 11:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I implemented it yesterday, it required no special coding. I added that to most (hopefully all) fields with numeric values. And to some text ones too (e.g. discharge_location_note). Though the text fields allow insertion of any type of data for some time already (they didn't only at the beginning when a non-standard way with the {{!}} template was used). I would advocate the use of the _note field in the case of both text and numeric fields in case you want to insert a note (be it a referenece or anything). Because it then enables easy upgrades of the templates or their transfer to other language Wikipedias which is one idea behind this series of infoboxes. There's no limitation as to what sort of information the _note fields can contain.

I'm trying to create a framework which could be used for all geography related infoboxes (they are currently 3 of them), usually trying a new approach on the Template:Infobox Mountain Summit which isn't in wider use yet. So updating the instructions is usually a few steps behind. Category:Geobox has some general instructions. The _note function should be applicable to most fields where it makes sense (so probably not country, region etc.) so I didn't include it in any legend. The legend will probably mention them only in the case when a different base field name is used. So there are already e.g. source_coordinates_note, source1_coordinates_note and mouth_coordinates_note field which gets printed after the coordinates though the legend fails to inform so.

Anyway, thanks for your feedback, I really appreciate it. Could you include a link to a page using the feature you mentioned (university box IIRC)? – Caroig 18:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ohio Wesleyan University uses {{Infobox University}} and the free label and free fields. "IIRC" is just "If I recall correctly". Sorry not to be clearer, and thanks for all your work on this, it looks good, Ruhrfisch 03:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There are now extra_name and extra_value fields which can contain any value (there can also be extra1_, extra2_ and extra3_ fields). Hope this is what you wanted. I'm not very happy with the word extra, any idea? Should be something short. I'm planning to rework the legend, it's not very clear now. And I suppose the _note fields will be there too. No need to apologize, I like learning new expressions :-) – Caroig 20:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How about "free" instead of "extra"? Ruhrfisch 20:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

… hurlyburly's done … – Caroig 21:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to apologize to Caroig (and other readers) for my aggressive tone in earlier comments. It was quite a bit too strident. The bulk of my contributions to wikipedia are related to rivers, and I use the old infobox often, so I was upset that it was being proposed to replace it with a new one that couldn't accomodate a number of needs for which it has already been used. (I'm not sure if you're still proposing it as a replacement, as it appears that you've removed that statement from the template page.) I agree that the old one is in need of an expansion and I would like a replacement, so I'm thankful that you've proposed one. It's clear you've worked very hard on it and I very much like its tidiness and aesthetics.

Thank you, also, for your effort in accomodating the citation of references (though I'm disheartened to see that you simultaneously added to your rules at Category:Geobox a strong suggestion that people not use the capability.) You mention that the method you've employed is difficult to learn, and nonstandard, with which I sadly agree. In looking at the {{Infobox University}} that Ruhrfisch mentions above, I'm struck by how blissfully easy it is to use in comparison to this one, by its approach of allowing editors to employ (or not) the common methods of markup with which everyone is familiar, such as [[brackets]] or <ref> tags as a situation demands, or to fill in a field with a short phrase, if needed in the interest of accuracy. In trying out several "preview edits" in the last couple of days to try to learn how this new template would work in various articles, I found it extremely difficult to use. The requirement that large numbers (such as 110,000) must not be expressed with commas is a huge change to ask people to make, and would, I think, leave most people constantly having to re-do their edits. (I also notice that the Infobox City doesn't appear to require this.) Would you be willing to make the template easier to use in the interest of having it be more accessible to a wide variety of editors? It's clear that consistency is of prime concern to you, but I do think that one could go a long way toward that goal (as well as tidy things up considerably) simply by providing more fields than the old template does, with more-specific fields for each bit of information, but without the rigid demands that such features as automatic calculations and automatic formatting require, and which make the template so difficult to use. Those are my thoughts, and again, I apologize for my tone above, and I hope that you'll continue give some consideration to my comments. Thanks for your work. Malepheasant 07:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, pertaining to the question above as to why it would be useful to cite a reference for the geographic coordinates of the mouth or the source of a stream (since most people get that information from maps anyway and nobody does it for cities) just for the sake of information I wanted to note that in the US the best place to get that kind of information is actually an online database called the Geographic Names Information System. It provides location data for every geographic feature in the country, including the coordinates for the source and mouth of all named streams, and the elevation at the mouth. It also includes records of government decisions concerning clarifications and disputes over the names and courses of streams (these disputes sometimes do happen), as well as historical variations in naming, and sometimes other data such as stream length, etc. Being reputable (based on decades of USGS data) and in the public domain (operated by the US government), there's no good reason not to cite it when using information from it. Doing so provides faster verification to the reader that information is accurate, and additionally introduces the database to editors who might find it useful in adding content to the encyclopedia. Malepheasant 07:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

 :-) I think my initial post at the talk page was rather unclear. I never intended to switch the old template for my proposal. I simply created another template, with a bit different approach, and I thought and still think if users find it useful they might start to use it instead of the old one thus to replace it as the standard river template. It can't replace Template:Infobox River as such as the fields are not compatible and so it has to be under a different name. I switched a few infoboxes on some well-known rivers and so far no-one has objected. I'm trying to provide extensive support for this template and I sort of didn't understand the calls for arbitration or complete removal of this proposal if the needs of one user weren't met.

I don't think the template is complicated to use at all. Text fields can contain anything, it simply goes against the idea of this series of infoboxes to put notes there. And you can fully use the square brackets in text fields. Notes, including references, should be put to the appropriate _note which I don't consider that complicated. Yes, fields with numbers can't contain any formatting (not even commas) but I don't think it is too difficult to remove the commas as the template then provides appropriate unit links and also automatically converts all values to metric/imperial counterparts. Much more typing when you do all that manually compared to a removal of a comma (rarely two, mostly none). Unfortunately, the scripting language used for creating templates is rather limited so many things that would be very easy with a standard scripting language are impossible to implement. Template:Infobox City doesn't allow for anything else than digits in all coordinates related fields, and though you can put more than just numbers to e.g. the elevation field it is not intended to be used this way as it produces broken output (127 this is my note km²). The above mentioned link proves that. I've converted the template from Salem River to the new template: User:Caroig/Sandbox, and as you can see it contains all information from your template although I don't think it a good idea to use the template this way.

Before I created this template I checked what data editors put to the existing infoboxes and created appropriate fields for most of them. The new template can easily accomodate all data from most of them. And I think it is real easy for a newbie editor to fill in data into the template as you don't need to format anything, they just put in data into appropriate fields which I believe are clearly named and the template creates the links if necessary, converts the units, creates the coordinates link to the map links page. As I wrote earlier I'm going to create a PHP script that would convert the data from the old infobox to the new one.

Automation is one of the features of these templates, I've been working hard on it so I'm afraid I don't want to remove it. If I find a way how to make the unit conversion work on figures with commas I'll gladly implement it but as of now I don't know how. Automation and detailed field separation are features of these templates, they've been designed so I'm going to remove them. It would then be completely different design.

I was personaly happy with the templates in their early design when they fully suited my needs and could accomodate most data from existing river infoboxes. All updates since then are based on other users requests (though I'm using the _note fields myself now too) and I'm willing to update them but not in the way that would go against the idea of this series… Even references can now be put in the infobox even though I think they shouldn't be there. Anyway, I find these debates inspirating.

By the way, I once added a few rather unballanced remarks to the article on the Amazon, concerning its length. I've been raised in Europe, spent some time in various countries of Latin America and most sources agreed on the length +- 7000km. Whilst traditional English sources quote it to be around 6400km. Why such big discrepancy? I'm planning to collect as much data and measurements concerning the length and I would greatly appreciate any help - primary sources saying how the figure was obtained (not from compendia such as Britannica). – Caroig 20:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

I just switched over Larrys Creek to the new Geobox River and like it for the most part, but have a few problems / questions.

The major problem is that I tried to put two references into the Geobox and the first one does not work (ref 1, as "watershed_note", I also tried it as "watershed_imperial_note" but no success). I had trouble getting the second ref to work, but it finally worked when added to the location (following text, as "discharge1_location_note"). It would not work after a number (as "discharge1_imperial_note"). I also notice the [2] for the ref note that works is italicized, when all others are not, i.e. [3].

I also noticed that the old {{Infobox River}} wikilinked some of the terms, such as basin, which might address the concern of using basin or watershed mentioned above. Watershed, Discharge, Source, and Mouth all seem like good candidates for wikilinking.

I tried to add a second maximum discharge (using "discharge1_max_imperial") for the second location where discharge has been measured (Discharge elsewhere), but got nothing showing up.

Is there any way to adjust the decimal places for the values shown? The old {{Infobox River}} let you enter them by hand so I had consistent decimals on length "22.9 mile (36.9 km)" but the Geobox shows it as 22.9 mile (37 km). What is worse is that no decimal is shown for discharge so the low discharge rates (was "10.8 cubic feet per second (0.306 m³/s)", same number of significant figures) get rounded down to "10.8 ft³/s (0 m³/s)". The stream is small, but its discharge is not zero!

Overall I like the Geobox, but hope these concerns can be addressed. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 20:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just returned from a three-day trip and I'm rather sleepy. Just two quick observations:

• Every _note field in the Geoboxes gets italicized to help distinguish the actual parameter value from any sort of notes, which don't have to be just references, actually the notes are not primarily designated for references, they're rather for textual data, comments etc.
• Please, do read Category:Geobox. You'll find everything concerning rounding values there.

I'll reply more thoroughly when I get some sleep, sorry for now. – Caroig (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much - take your time and thanks for the reply - hope you rest well! Ruhrfisch 22:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The problems with refs and decimal points are all fixed - thanks. Ruhrfisch 02:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)