Template talk:Infobox mountain

message: Does this infobox have a field for the names of geological formations that form individual mountains? I was looking to use  but that parameter is for mountain formation (i.e. the geological processes that underlie the formation of mountains) rather than geological formations. Volcanoguy 18:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , , , etc. — hike395 (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  is deprecated. Multiple items are placed into  using templates such as . RedWolf (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, both  and  are for types of rock rather than geological formations which are not necessarily rock types but rather rock units. Volcanoguy 09:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be ok to reuse the same parameter for formations. Editors have already done this at Black Forest, Mount Monadnock, and Elm (hills). — hike395 (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably be better if formations had their own parameter; I find it kind of strange adding them in a parameter for rock types. If there will ever be a parameter for geological formations I would suggest  since formations are only one type of rock unit; there are also beds, members, groups and supergroups.  could link to stratigraphic unit.  Volcanoguy 11:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

text: The reason why those articles use  for rock units could be because there isn't a better parameter to use. Volcanoguy 11:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Clarify: When I said I found it kind of strange adding rock units in a parameter for rock types I meant the name of the rock unit only (e.g. XXXX Member, XXXX Formation, XXXX Group, XXXX Supergroup). It's reasonable to include the name of a rock unit with the type of rock forming a mountain like in the examples above but that might not always be possible. Volcanoguy 19:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, if you had a peak that was made of the Chinle formation, you're thinking it would be strange to have , because it isn't a single type of rock? — hike395 (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes because it can be vague; formations can consist of several types of rocks. Volcanoguy 00:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geological formations 

message: Is it really necessary to have "English" in ? This is English Wikipedia so the translation parameter would obviously be used for English translation. Volcanoguy 01:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  English translation 

message: Browsing Mount Nebo I saw that it is about 700m above sea level.  But it is also beside the Dead Sea whose surface is about 430.5m below sea level. This means that it is 1130.5m above a local baseline. So I wondered whether there might be a case for additional elevation information, e.g. "local elevation", for cases where such a concept might be relevant.  Probably not, but I thought it might be worth raising the idea. Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible additional 'elevation' parameters 

message: Quick question - is there a template which would be more suitable for articles about specific mountain ranges or mountainous areas? I see that Alps, Andes, and Rocky Mountains use this template, but it seems a bit cumbersome as it was really designed for single mountains. Thanks, A.D.Hope (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: was merged into  in 2015, so this is the best one. — hike395 (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for mountain ranges 

message: I've noticed the names of mountain ranges don't show up on the infobox map while  is being used. Is this an error? Volcanoguy 00:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, see Mount Edziza volcanic complex versus Mount Edziza. Volcanoguy 01:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect this is a deep programming problem that removes the intended default overlay code and is likely deeper than the infobox mountain template although topo-map parameter which is definitely buggy is used on one of the maps you refer to. The various infobox templates do handle mapping code differently I have discovered over the years and I tend not to report as bug if I can figure away around to get the display I want as often the code author assumes a certain way maps are presented in infobox.  For example at the moment I am in the process of moving some topo_map using maplink generated geological maps with frames to the embedded= parameter as topo-map parameter associated code assumes I think pure image code not surrounded by divs and can completely fall over with unframed maplink template maps.ChaseKiwi (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:   As far as I can tell, this was for compatibility with , which did not have map labels, because of compatibility with . I can't think of a reason why we shouldn't display the label, so I fixed it. Apologies for the delay -- I missed your original post. — hike395 (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mountain range names not showing up