From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Volga River (Example)
Volga in Yaroslavl (autumn morning)
Origin	Valdai Hills
Mouth	Caspian Sea
Basin countries	Russia
Length	3,690 km (2,293 mi)
Source elevation	225 m (738 ft)
Mouth elevation	0
Avg. discharge	8,000 m³/s (282,517 ft³/s)
Basin area	1,380,000 km² (532,821 mi²)

Volga
Russian: Волга
Volga in Yaroslavl (autumn morning)
Country	Russia
Length	3,690 km (2,293 mi)
Watershed	1,380,000 km² (532,821 sq mi)
Discharge at	mouth
- average	8,000 m³/s (282,517 cu ft/s)
Source
- location	Valdai Hills
Mouth
- location	Caspian Sea, Russia
- elevation	225 m (738 ft)
Major tributaries
- left	Kama
- right	Oka, Don
Volga river watershed

This template is part of the Rivers WikiProject.

[edit] Usage

[edit] Example

The wikicode below will create the Infobox at right:

{{Infobox_River | river_name = Volga River (Example)
  | image_name = Russia_River_Volga.jpg
  | caption = Volga in [[Yaroslavl]] (autumn morning)
  | origin = [[Valdai Hills]]
  | mouth = [[Caspian Sea]]
  | basin_countries = [[Russia]]
  | length = 3,690 km (2,293 mi)
  | elevation = 225 m (738 ft)
  | mouth_elevation = 0
  | discharge = 8,000 m³/s (282,517 ft³/s)
  | watershed = 1,380,000 km² (532,821 mi²)
}}

[edit] Using the Template

{{Infobox_River 
  | river_name = NAME
  | image_name = IMAGE_FILE_NAME
  | caption = CAPTION
  | origin = ORIGIN
  | mouth = MOUTH
  | basin_countries = BASIN_COUNTRIES
  | length = KILOMETERS km (MILES mi)
  | elevation = METERS m (FEET ft)
  | mouth_elevation = METERS m (FEET ft)
  | discharge = METERS m³/s (FEET ft³/s)
  | watershed = KILOMETERS km² (MILES mi²)
}}

<!-- End Infobox template table -->

• Be sure to replace all of the all-caps words.
• Any of the items above can be safely left blank. Note that you may include an image with no caption, but a caption will not be shown if there is no image.
• Wiki links [[]] are fine in any of the Infobox fields.
• Include the HTML comments before and following the template; they help inexperienced editors.
• Please spend some time at the Rivers WikiProject article and its talk page for standards on presenting names and other data.

[edit] Empty syntax

Copy this syntax block if you prefer to cut and paste into an empty template.

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

{{Infobox_River 
  | river_name = 
  | image_name =
  | caption = 
  | origin = 
  | mouth = 
  | basin_countries =
  | length = 
  | elevation = 
  | mouth_elevation = 
  | discharge = 
  | watershed = 
}}

<!-- End Infobox template table -->

[edit] Alternate Units of Measurement

The following alternate empty syntax blocks are for use where you only have data in either metric or in Imperial units, or where the subject of your article calls for a different order. For example, the Mississippi River in America probably ought to use Imperial (metric) syntax, while the Canadian Mississippi would more appropriately use metric (Imperial).

Imperial (metric)

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

{{Infobox_River 
  | river_name = RIVER_NAME
  | image_name = IMAGE_NAME
  | caption = CAPTION
  | origin = ORIGIN
  | mouth = MOUTH
  | basin_countries = BASIN_COUNTRIES
  | length = MILES mi (KILOMETERS km)
  | elevation = FEET ft (METERS m)
  | mouth_elevation = FEET ft (METERS m)
  | discharge = FEET ft³/s (METERS m³/s)
  | watershed = MILES mi² (KILOMETERS km²)
}}

<!-- End Infobox template table -->

Metric Only

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

{{Infobox_River 
  | river_name = RIVER_NAME
  | image_name = IMAGE_NAME
  | caption = CAPTION
  | origin = ORIGIN
  | mouth = MOUTH
  | basin_countries = BASIN_COUNTRIES
  | length = KILOMETERS km
  | elevation = METERS m
  | mouth_elevation = METERS m
  | discharge = METERS m³/s
  | watershed = KILOMETERS km²
}}

<!-- End Infobox template table -->

Imperial Only

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

{{Infobox_River 
  | river_name = RIVER_NAME
  | image_name = IMAGE_NAME
  | caption = CAPTION
  | origin = ORIGIN
  | mouth = MOUTH
  | basin_countries = BASIN_COUNTRIES
  | length = MILES mi
  | elevation = FEET ft
  | mouth_elevation = FEET ft
  | discharge = FEET ft³/s
  | watershed = MILES mi²
}}

<!-- End Infobox template table -->

[edit] Discussion

I modified this template to use a new CSS style that hides table rows if the corresponding parameters are left blank. This system also means we no longer need to call a sub-template, eliminating any conflict with WP:AUM. No article edits are required by these changes. —Papayoung ☯ 05:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:River

Template:River has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:River. Thank you.--Wikiacc (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: The original Template river has been deleted and that name is now used for the WikiProject talk page template. Rmhermen 18:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig fix

I've redirected "basin" to watershed, as that is the most reasonable option on the disambig page - but that makes two links to watershed in this article, so you may wish to find an alternative expression. BD2412 T 01:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What happened?

I don't know anything about the creation of templates, but I've noticed that the static descriptors (Origin, Length, Basin countries, etc.) have disappeared from the finished infobox, so that now there's just a list of countries and numbers with no information about what they refer to. See the Volga example at top. What happened? Can anybody fix it? Malepheasant 00:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• The change was reverted and it's fine now, so... thanks! -- Malepheasant 06:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry about that. A new feature, '#if:' (see m:ParserFunctions), was built into the MediaWiki software by the developers to replace 'hiddenStructure' and 'qif'. I was converting this to that new format so it will be ready when those older methods are removed. I made a mistake in the line spacing which caused the problem, but it should be corrected now. Please let me know if there are other issues. --CBDunkerson 13:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why no elevation at the mouth?

I realize many major rivers flow into the sea, but many rivers flow into other rivers. It seems that it would be useful to include the elevation of the river at the mouth. If it is sea level, this could be left blank or entered as "sea level" (or whatever the accepted term is). Thanks, Ruhrfisch 04:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that this would be a useful addition. Malepheasant 03:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• I agree as well. This would also help us identify rivers that are essentially at risk of sea level rise vs. those that are less threatened. MCalamari 18:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annual Discharge Volume

In addition to talking about river discharge as a flowrate (cfs), for water supply purposes US engineers look to the annual volume of water without any time reference. The common unit of discharge is acre-feet or thousands of acre-feet. Could we add a second discharge box called "discharge volume" to supplement the "discharge flowrate"? Discharge volumes are also very important on rivers that are dammed, as any reservoir storage volume or capacity is somewhat related (based on the design needs of the structure) to the annual discharge volume. (Flood pools will still be set to discharge flowrates, but storage pools will tend to focus on the longer time averaged volume.) MCalamari 18:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

If anybody is interested in working examples, check out Chicopee River Watershed. This has a top-level menu with links to the major rivers (as well as other waterbodies) within this river system. I think the existing template will handle just about anything one would want in an introduction, which is what an infobox really is anyway. Of course you can have rivers with three (maybe more) heads as in the Swift River entry, but I just put the longest branch for the head in the infobox, with further explaination is the text. It seems to work out okay. -- LymanSchool 01:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate wikilinks in template

I noticed that there are two wikilinks to Source (river or stream) in the Template:Infobox River ("Origin" and "Source Elevation"). Per WP:MOS shouldn't there be just one link? Thanks, Ruhrfisch 05:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New version

Hello, I've created a new version for the Infobox template. For the time being it's at Template:Geobox River. It's based on the same css and logic as Template:Infobox City and Template:Infobox Country thus aiming to have all geography related infoboxes in the same layout. The new template can be used for both short local streams as well as huge river with a lot of data about such as the Amazon, where I gave it a kick-off. Let's try to use it for a while from its current location and if it proves usefull, it could, hopefully, replace this one. If you have any question feel free to post them on my talk page. Caroig 21:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the inclusion of source and mouth coordinates. Since there are already many rivers with infoboxes, I suggest using parameters with the same name as in the present infobox. Markussep 21:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I see the point and I've given it a thought when working on the new template but it contains (resp. can contain) much more data and so some field cannot be simply reused. Take elevation, in the old template it's used for the mouth elevation, the new template has fields for both source elevation and mouth elevation. The same applies , e.g., for caption as in the new template there can be a caption for both the map and the image. Nonetheless, some field names remain the same, 'e.g.' length, watershed.

Did you announce your new template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers already? Markussep 11:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of new version

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)

There is at least one Featured Article, Paulins Kill, in which sources are cited within the fields of the old infobox. I also found this discussion on the Manual of Style talk page concerning the propriety of including information in the infobox that is not in the main text of the article (summary: it's an acceptable practice when presentation of the information would interfere with good prose, but sources must be cited.) So I'd be sadly opposed to entirely replacing the old template unless this could be addressed. I like having more informational fields to work with, but I think that having the flexibility to cite sources as needed is highly important, and that the new version as it exists presently would appear to be quite disruptive to existing citations. --Malepheasant 19:41, 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? Would it make the infobox again rather messy?

I suggest moving this discussion to Infobox_River_Geography where it might be more appropriate. – Caroig 20:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mouth and Source Coordinates

Could a field be added to give the coordinates of the mouth, perhaps using the {coord} template? A field could also be added for the source coordinates using coord, useful if the source were not some other geographic feature already tagged with coordinates (EG not a lake). papageno 01:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! Markussep ^Talk 09:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The other river infobox {{Geobox River}} has fields for source and mouth coordinates. You might consider converting the infobox for rivers you want to add coordinates to, to this other template. Markussep ^Talk 15:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Upgrade

I went and upgraded the template so that it would convert to and from imperial/US and SI. I hadn't realised that it was being replaced with a new version. I'll document the upgrade but put a depreciated tag on the page. JЇѦρ 05:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)