Template talk:Infobox Mountain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information)
Disambig	This article has been rated as dab-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance to WikiProject Mountains on the project's importance scale.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. Help with this template

[edit] Examples

Two examples from actual articles are below.

[edit] Example 1

{{Infobox Mountain
| Name = K2
| Photo = K2-big.jpg
| Caption = K2 in Summer
| Elevation = 8,611 metres (28,251 feet)<br /><small>[[Eight-thousander|Ranked 2nd]]</small>
| Location = [[Taxkorgan Tajik Autonomous County]], [[Xinjiang]], [[China]]/[[Northern Areas, Pakistan|Northern Areas of Pakistan]]
| Range = [[Karakoram]]
| Prominence = 4,017 metres
| Coordinates = {{coor dm|35|53|N|76|31|E|type:mountain}}
| Type = 
| Age = 
| Last eruption = 
| First ascent = [[July 31]] [[1954]] by Lacedelli & Compagnoni
| Easiest route = rock/snow/ice climb
| Grid_ref_uk = 
| Grid_ref_ireland = 
| Listing = 
| Translation = 
| Language = 
| Pronunciation = 
}}

K2
K2 in Summer
Elevation	8,611 metres (28,251 feet) Ranked 2nd
Location	Taxkorgan Tajik Autonomous County, Xinjiang, China/Northern Areas of Pakistan
Range	Karakoram
Prominence	4,017 metres
Coordinates	35°53′N, 76°31′E
First ascent	July 31, 1954 by Lacedelli & Compagnoni
Easiest route	rock/snow/ice climb

[edit] Example 2

{{Infobox Mountain
| Name = Mount Shasta
| Photo = Mt_Shasta_from_the_northwest-750px.JPG
| Caption = Mount Shasta and Shastina from the Butte Valley (North-East)
| Elevation = 14,179 ft (4,322 m)
| Location = [[California]], [[United States|USA]]
| Range = [[Cascade Range|Cascades]]
| Prominence = 
| Coordinates = 
| Topographic map = [[USGS]] Mount Shasta
| Type = [[Composite volcano]]
| Age = <593 Kyr
| Last eruption = [[1786]]
| First ascent = [[1854]] by E.D. Pearce and party
| Easiest route = rock/ice
| Grid_ref_uk = 
| Grid_ref_ireland = 
| Listing = 
| Translation = 
| Language = 
| Pronunciation = 
}}

Mount Shasta
Mount Shasta and Shastina from the Butte Valley (North-East)
Elevation	14,179 ft (4,322 m)
Location	California, USA
Range	Cascades
Topo map	USGS Mount Shasta
Type	Composite volcano
Age of rock	<593 Kyr
Last eruption	1786
First ascent	1854 by E.D. Pearce and party
Easiest route	rock/ice

[edit] Excellent!

Just to say I think this template is a worthy successor to {{Mtnbox}} – thank you! I've taken the liberty of rearranging the above as the templates and code clashed on my display. As noted in the article history, I've also removed the colons as these become misaligned when the parameters that follow them wrap around. (Thanks to the color scheme, I also reckon they're unnecessary.)
Best wishes, David Kernow 17:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Coor at dms

By using these templates in the infobox, the coordinates get display with the article title as well, similar to many articles about towns and other places. Thus one might want to update (keeping the coordinates, obviously):

{{Coor dms}} => {{Coor at dms}}

{{Coor dm}} => {{Coor at dm}}

{{Coor d}} => {{Coor at d}}

Samples may be seen at: Krakatoa and Kangchenjunga -- User:Docu

In fact there is an easier way to do it, just adding the template twice to the infobox, as on Template:Infobox City Japan. As it's easy to undo, I'm implementing this change. -- User:Docu

Why the extra expression of the coordinates at the top of the article? —wwoods 05:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the default location for coordinates of the article. Template:Coor title dms started in English language Wikipedia. -- User:Docu

So how do I turn it off? In my browser it shows up as the first paragraph of the article. Or, if there's no blank line after the infobox, in the first paragraph:

"Coordinates: 43°38′58″N, 71°54′51″W Mount Cardigan is a prominent bare-rock summit in the towns of Orange and Alexandria in..."

The coordinates are already in the infobox; there's no need for another coord link floating around the top of the article.

—wwoods 18:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with wwoods on this. It's just plain silly to have the same information displayed twice on the page. I do NOT recommend changing mountain articles to use the "at" template. RedWolf 22:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with wwoods and RedWolf --- it seems redundant and useless to me. hike395 05:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to change the templates. The display at the default location doesn't require that. BTW which skin do you use? In Monobook, the display is correct. -- User:Docu

In Classic, it isn't. —wwoods 19:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

At MediaWiki_talk:Standard.css#Coordinates_in_article_heading, there is a fix for that skin. -- User:Docu

So what should be done with that, add it to the template?

—wwoods 07:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be added to MediaWiki:Standard.css. That way it would fix all other coordinates that are currently misplaced in that skin. -- User:Docu

[edit] Google maps added to template

You can now get a template link to Google Maps using Google_map = 54.454000000,-3.21200000 Google_Name = Cader%20Idris

- Remember to URL Encode the {{{Google_Name}}} Snozzer 10:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think you should have asked for discussion before adding these parameters? I'm not saying I would have objected but this template is used by thousands of pages. RedWolf 15:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The existing template functionality has not been altered at all, perhaps I should have asked first yes, but no harm has been done as all the pages using the template will continue to operate without error "TheNose | Talk" 15:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, this gives undue prominence to a single map provider. It also adds no functionality, since a link to Google Maps (amongst others) is provided through the co-ordinates, or in the case of British hills, grid reference. I have reverted the template until consensus can be reached as to whether or not this feature should be added (as discussed with its implementor). This keeps the number of unnecessary edits to a minimum, as unrecognised fields in the template will simply be ignored and articles which have already been altered to take advantage will not need to be reverted individually. It will/would be easy to restore the feature if/when a consensus is reached. --Stemonitis 16:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think we need this, as it duplicates info we already can access. Nationalparks 16:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The info is not available clearly, the exisiting gbm4ibx external template is an absolute mess "TheNose | Talk" 10:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points:

Magnus' page is a quick hack to replace an older external page that went suddenly defunct. Magnus didn't implement the parsing of the 9th parameter, which could contain "region:UK" or "region:US" or "region:CH", and restrict the maps only to those that are applicable. It sounds like we should restore this feature.
There is a way to reach a compromise here, which I think would make everyone happy, and also would be compatible with we are doing for US-ian mountains. On many mountain pages, we are using {{Geolinks-US-mountain}} in the external links section. That highlights specific external map providers that are particularly useful for mountains, calling them with the best parameters for mountains. This way, the infobox can be neutral with respect to map providers, and explicit links to external providers can stay in external links (where they belong). I would suggest that we start {{Geolinks-UK-mountain}} (and {{Geolinks-IE-mountain}}) to be analogous, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject British hills participants could design it to be best for their hills.

hike395 10:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A most excellent compromise and plan, I fully agree "TheNose | Talk" 11:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Snozzer! I see you started the template, I just copied the Google Maps link over from {{Geolinks-US-mountain}}. Did you want to put this on the top 25 UK peaks? hike395 11:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No Problem, I can work through and do the top 25 "TheNose | Talk" 12:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly think the {{Geolinks-UK-mountain}} template is an improvement over the Infobox entry, but as we've already got the {{gbm4ibx}} template, and its use is widespread, wouldn't it be better to improve that rather than introduce a new template? The {{gbm4ibx}} template has the advantage of being less obtrusive and can be used inline in an article, for example when discussion various features on a mountain. — ras52 12:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

Please remove Category:Coordinates templates; this template isn't a coordinate template. Thanks. Mike Peel 20:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Ligulem 00:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Mike Peel 10:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate Template

There appears to be a duplicate/parallel template to this one: Template:Geobox Mountain. It is only used in a handful of places, but appears to have some features superior to Template:Infobox Mountain.

Which one should be used? Should we merge it's features into Template:Infobox Mountain? --Ozhiker 15:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains#Template --- this one is the established template, and the consensus seems to be to keep using this one. I would bring any discussion up at that Talk page. Thanks! hike395 02:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Volcano numbering

I noticed that there are volcano eruption, volcano type, etc, and other information for mountains, related to volcano specific. therefore I would like to suggest new field, called "Volcano number" which is international numbering of volcanos. I edited 3 of them already to fill-in this field. This number is in form 1234-56.

See Ubinas, Tungurahua, Reventador for examples.

Thank you! User:Weis 08:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose this --- the volcano number is not very commonly known: it's an index number for the Smithsonian. I don't think enough people would want to see it "at a glance" to warrant putting it into the infobox. hike395 13:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not done; if you obtain consensus for this change and/or can link to it, nthe change may be made, but for the time being I won't make a change which has been disagreed-with in good faith. --ais523 14:09, 24 April 2007 (U T C)

[edit] Volcanic belt, volcanic arc and tectonic setting

I noticed that there are no volcanic belt, volcanic arc and tectonic setting in the infobox. Therefore I would like to suggest new fields called, "Volcanic belt", "Volcanic arc" and "Tectonic setting" since volcanoes are found in different areas around the world. "Volcanic arc" which would be useful for the Cascade Volcanoes, the Volcanoes of Indonesia, anywhere there's subduction or an arc of volcanoes, "Volcanic belt" can be used for those that are in a specific area, sush as the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, Andean Volcanic Belt and "Tectonic setting" because volcanoes can be made by different things, sush as hotspots, subduction, rifting, etc. All of them are pretty important in volcanology. Black Tusk 08:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be 3 different parameters each to essentialy define the same thing, i.e. what larger geological structure the mountain is part of. The most generic term of the 3 above would seem, to myself a non-geologist, the "Tectonic setting". This needs some discussion and comment from other editors to reach consenus on what to add and how it is to be incorporated (? a hierachy of parameters with only the most specific being used if more than one parameter is defined, or allow for multiple parameters to be given ?). The template currently has a "Range" parameter, could not such details be added there instead (with some agreed guidelines of how to so use and phrase the parameter value) ? David Ruben ^Talk 01:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the editprotected request for now, but please do retag this talk page in due course. Also please feel free to approach me if you need any help in considering programming options (done with parser functions - WM:PF).David Ruben ^Talk 01:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Volcanic belts and arcs are not a range, it's a volcanic grouping, and putting those type of things inside the "Range" parameter is kind of wrong, since they are not really a range. That's why I think it's appropriate to have their own fields in the infobox. Volcanic arcs are volcanoes that are related to subduction, volcanic belts are volcanoes that are formed by almost anything, sush as the Stikine Volcanic Belt, which was formed by rifting, the Anahim Volcanic Belt was formed when the North American Plate moved over a hotspot, and calling some volcanic arcs a volcanic belt is also wrong. Black Tusk 08:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Tusk (talk • contribs) 00:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Ok I'll accept there are the difference causes, but are 3 parameters required - presumeably a mountain can only be one of these 3 possibilities, so what happens if more than one parameter gets defined (show all 3 parameter values ?). It would be easier, I suspect, to have just the one parameter that is assign the single "Volcanic belt"/"Volcanic arc"/"Tectonic setting" value appropriate for the particular mountain in question ? If so, what should the single parameter be called (? "Geological aetiology") and how should it be displayed (i.e. in the left most column what is its header). David Ruben ^Talk 01:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if a volcano has more than one cause, I guess those volcanoes can have more than one of the 3 parameters, for example, the volcanoes of the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt could have all 3 parameters, because the volcanoes within that volcanic belt are the northern extension of the Cascade Volcanic Arc (1), there within the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt (2), and were formed by subduction, which is what the "Tectonic setting" parameter would be for (3) (similar things like this are also in Iceland). But if there is a way to have a single parameter for all 3 parameters, I guess it might also be appropriate, although I don't think there is. Black Tusk 11:06, 6 May 2007 {UTC)

Ok I follow your points (I'm learning here). So I can forsee 3 methods of implementing:

Geographical_Formation (or similar) as a parameter to which the relevant details are added ?
Alternatively 3 separate parameters but all displayed as a single entry (i.e. the displayed text concanates the 3 parameters if they are defined).
This could of course be 3 separate entries and each with there own displayed row (but only displayed if defined).

Also where in the pecking order of current parameters should this be included ?

Again thanks Black Tusk, and if other people who watch this template could add in their tuppence ($0.02) worth of opinion, it will reduce the chances of squabbles (and need repeatedly re-edit this protected template) when this is implemented :-). David Ruben ^Talk 16:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering if these new fields would be of any interest to most of the people looking at volcano articles. For those who have an avid interest in volcanology, I can see how they would find it of value. However, would anyone else really find the additional lines in the infobox of much interest? I realize these would be optional parameters but I have to wonder if this is bordering on infobox clutter? I see way too many infoboxes these days trying to stick almost every conceivable common value between the underlying subject (e.g. cities — city council members in the infobox?). To me, an infobox should generally be a quick synopsis, not a detailed perspective. It's one of the reasons why I no longer actively contribute to the Album WikiProject as they keep expanding/changing the infobox to suit every conceivable nuance of each music genre but I digress. I would also prefer just one line added but this does not seem to be a feasible solution given the "technical" differences between the three fields. Which begs the question, if these are technical differences, are most people going to care much about seeing them? This is why we only have the "easiest route" in the infobox and not also the "hardest" route (which tends to be more argumentative than the easiest), the shortest route, the longest route, or all the other variations of climbing routes that could be listed. I'm not trying to pick on the volcano aspect (it's just the current focus of debate), but I think a line needs to be drawn as to how much detail needs to be given in an infobox. RedWolf 17:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My ha'penny: I think that the "Type" field of the infobox is quite general, and could contain the tectonic setting. So, instead of saying a peak is a stratovolcano, it could be a hotspot stratovolcano, etc. I would propose thus adding only one extra field: Volcanic Arc/Belt. The editors could choose the most specific one (much like you must choose only one range, rather than all parent ranges). This compromise would hopefully express most everything that Black Tusk wants, while preventing infobox creep that alarms RedWolf. hike395 05:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yea, but Hike395, not all volcanoes are in mountain ranges, that's why I think it would be ok to have the volcanic arc or belt in the infobox. Black Tusk 03:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was agreeing with you --- add "Volcanic Arc/Belt" to the infobox: just one more row. hike395 03:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok sorry, I don't really understand you Black Tusk 09:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

hike395's proposal is an acceptable solution to me. RedWolf 20:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok "Volcanic Arc/Belt" it is - but where in the pecking order of parameters should it go ? After "Prominence" or after "Type" ? David Ruben ^Talk 01:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably after "Type". "Type", "Age", and "Last Eruption" are all geological: anywhere in there is OK with me. hike395 02:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with hike395. After "Type" seems to be the best spot for it. RedWolf 06:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok Volcanic_Arc/Belt added, here is a dummy test. Would an abbreviation to fit the one line of "Vol.Arc/Belt" be better ? David Ruben ^Talk 17:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Test
Elevation
Type	Subduction
Volcanic arc/belt	Andean Volcanic Belt
Age of rock	10 million years

I made a couple of minor tweaks: fixed the capitalization to match the rest of the template, and added an nbsp to prevent the bad linebreak which occurred above a certain font size. I think that's better than abbreviating to "Vol. arc/belt". --Seattle Skier (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree that "Vol." is a poor abbreviation to use: not clear. Thanks for adding the nbsp! hike395 03:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

How about dropping "Volcanic" entirely in the label? Arc and belt are wiki-linked so anyone unsure would immediately see it linked to volcanic arc and volcanic belt? RedWolf 03:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you thinking of dropping "Volcanic" to avoid line-splitting on white space, or just to make things more compact? hike395 04:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

To avoid line splitting although I also like the idea of making it more compact as well. However, it doesn't seem to be much of an issue at this point, so that proposal can be shelved for now. RedWolf 15:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Text size

Can someone please lower the text size as in Template:Infobox Country? Thanks. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer that we keep 100% text size, - its an accessibility issue. Andy Mabbett 12:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

strange to hear that 100% font size would be better accessibility. With current settings, when looking from smaller screens (and we talking here not only computer screens, but all other devices supporting web browsing) the page main content is suffocated between left-hand navigation and right-hand side infobox. not to mention that infobox is loaded first (=delayed time to read article) infobox should be for article not other way around. (infobox just takes together in different format the info article provides)

also accessibility would expect that user/reader can define image size. And if we really talk about accessibility then the table widths wouldn't be in pixels

90% font and 250px with would improve the "imprtance" division --TarmoK 22:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing strange about respecting a user's preferred text size. And no, table widths should not be in pixels. Andy Mabbett 22:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the Country infobox has like 4000 parameters so I can see why you would need a smaller text size for that beast. I'm happy with the current text size for this template so I am against making this change. RedWolf 15:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hCard microformat

Please add the mark-up for an hCard microformat, per WP:UF, by adding:

class="vcard" to the outer container

class="fn org" to the "Name" table row.

class="label" to the td containing {{{Location|}}}</code>.

class="note" to each of the rows for Elevation, Range, Prominence, Type, Volcanic Arc/Belt, Age, Last eruption and First ascent.

Please also move the documentation, interwikis and categories to a /doc page, so that I can describe the above. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 12:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please double-check that it works. CMummert · talk 14:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks good, and seems to work, but the documentation still needs to go in a separate page, at /doc Andy Mabbett 15:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, too. I've now updated the documentation. Andy Mabbett 12:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Detail for microformat markup

Could we replace

|- 
{{#if:{{{Location|}}}|
{{!}} style="border-top:1px solid #999966; border-right:1px solid #999966; background:#e7dcc3;" {{!}} Location
{{!}} class="label" style="border-top:1px solid #999966;" {{!}} {{{Location|}}}

with

|- class="adr"
{{#if:{{{Location|}}}|
{{!}} style="border-top:1px solid #999966; border-right:1px solid #999966; background:#e7dcc3;" {{!}} Location
{{!}} class="region" style="border-top:1px solid #999966;" {{!}} {{{Location|}}}

It would put the location in the right microformat field (adress->region) rather than just a label. Thanks --Qyd 21:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If location weren't used, it would apply to the next available parameter, not necessarily something related to "adr". --MZMcBride 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Opps, you're right. Then maybe

|- 
{{#if:{{{Location|}}}|
{{!}} style="border-top:1px solid #999966; border-right:1px solid #999966; background:#e7dcc3;" {{!}} Location
{{!}} class="adr" style="border-top:1px solid #999966;" {{!}} <span class="region">{{{Location|}}}</span>

would work? --Qyd 00:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to remove class="label"? And, does it matter if the class="adr" goes in the <tr> or <td>? --MZMcBride 23:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the "address" fields are similar, but more detailed than "label" (and "label" is generally not parsed as well as "address" is), so if we change to "adr", then "label" should go. Shouldn't matter where class="adr" goes, as long as class="region" is wrapped in an element defined as "adr", i.e.

|- 
{{#if:{{{Location|}}}|
{{!}} style="border-top:1px solid #999966; border-right:1px solid #999966; background:#e7dcc3;" {{!}} Location
{{!}} style="border-top:1px solid #999966;" {{!}} <span class="adr"><span class="region">{{{Location|}}}</span></span>

would work just as well. --Qyd 01:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Neil ム 13:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Code updates

I've updated the code to use wiki formatting; it's easier to read and doesn't require HTML comments. Additionally, I removed some redundant code (e.g., width:205px). The layout and usage should be identical. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo caption font size

{{Editprotected}} Could the photo caption use a slightly smaller font?

by replacing:

{{!}} style="border-top:1px solid #999966; text-align:center;" colspan="2" {{!}} [[Image:{{{Photo}}}|300px]]<br />{{{Caption|}}}

with:

{{!}} style="border-top:1px solid #999966; font-size:95%; text-align:center;" colspan="2" {{!}} [[Image:{{{Photo}}}|300px]]<br />{{{Caption|}}}

{{!}} style="border-top:1px solid #999966; font-size:smaller; text-align:center;" colspan="2" {{!}} [[Image:{{{Photo}}}|300px]]<br />{{{Caption|}}}

or even

{{!}} style="border-top:1px solid #999966; text-align:center;" colspan="2" {{!}} [[Image:{{{Photo}}}|300px]]<br /><small>{{{Caption|}}}</small>

It would be closer to a standard image caption. Thanks. --Qyd 17:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Globalize wikilink for "Listing" row

{{editprotected}} Please change the wikilink for the "Listing" row. Currently links to Hill lists in the British Isles: please link to Lists of mountains instead (to allow us to use listings in any country). Discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains#Lists in Infobox. Thanks! hike395 08:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 10:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Locator image

Is it possible to add locator image functionality? Sometimes a picture of a mountain is not currently available but having locator image to the mountain is enough. For instance, in Mount Leuser article. There is one example in Template:Infobox Settlement which provides the functionality with pushpin_map parameter. It would be good to have such feature in this template. — Indon (reply) — 09:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

While this is not implemented in Infobox Mountain, a map can be forced in (within the name parameter), see Mount Leuser. --Qyd 14:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't look good at all -- I would far rather editors just used the map as a photo then force something in like this. hike395 02:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be better to use the already defined coordinate parameters to make the location map, instead of forcing it and define the same coordinate parameters twice. — Indon (reply) — 09:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hike, this kind of map (with additional markup) can not be used instead of the photo because of the automatically added image syntax ([[Image: ...etc). Of course, that can be circumvented too... Indon, the problem with pushpin_map (dot position defined by coordinates) is that it only works with maps of rectangular projection (not suitable for larger regions), so if we would implement this, we would also need some other alternative map display system. --Qyd 14:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest continue discussing this at the relevant wikiproject, so more people can participate. hike395 03:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redesign

I was (over)bold and updated the visual look somewhat to reflect the design of other similar infoboxes. I hope I didn't screw anything up (well, I'm good at templates, but not exceptionally good). If I did, feel free to revert me (well, um, or call an administrator to do that through {{editprotected}}). Duja► 15:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your work --- however, the style of the infobox reflects a long-standing consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains. I'll start a conversation there, to see if we can get consensus on the new style. hike395 04:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parent Peak?

Where was the discussion on adding a parent peak parameter? Mark J seems to have added it without any community discussion. RedWolf 16:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No discussion --- I was going to bring it up back at the WikiProject. I'll leave a note on the Infobox urging people to discuss editing the infobox at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hike395 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with "Photo size" parameter

The "Photo size" parameter seems to cause a problem if it exists but is empty. This is because the template places a pipe symbol after the image name with nothing between that and the closing square brackets. I think an "if" block is needed. --Ozhiker (talk) 10:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed --Ozhiker (talk) 13:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pushpin location map added

Per a request on my talk page, I've added a pushpin location map. It uses almost the same exact coding that is used at {{Infobox Settlement}}. Any map that has been created for {{location map}} can be used (e.g. Nepal or Colorado). New coordinate fields were also added to facilitate this and those coordinate fields must be used to make the map work correctly. All the new fields are:

|pushpin_map            =<!-- the name of a location map as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Location_map -->
|pushpin_label_position = <!-- the position of the pushpin label: left, right, top, bottom, none -->
|pushpin_map_caption    =
|pushpin_mapsize        =
|coordinates_ref= 
|latd= |latm= |lats= |latNS=
|longd= |longm= |longs= |longEW=

—MJCdetroit ^(yak) 18:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See Mount Everest for an example. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 18:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This should have been discussed on the WikiProject page before implementing it. I don't have any objection to map concept itself as I myself was testing some changes to add map parameters. However, this is a major change and the convention is to allow the community to discuss before implementation. For example, I would prefer to see the map at the bottom of the infobox rather than immediately after the image. Also, I was looking at just adding one parameter called map where one would place the call to {{Location map}}. RedWolf (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parent Peak

The attribute Parent_peak does not seem to display. Is that meant to be the case?imars (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example, Nakano Summit imars (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The documentation was not in sync with the implementation. The actual parameter name is "Parent peak". I have fixed the documentation. RedWolf (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)